SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF NORTHERN PAKISTAN Volume 5

SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF
NORTHERN PAKISTAN
VOLUME 5
LANGUAGES OF CHITRAL
Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan
Volume 1 Languages of Kohistan

Volume 2 Languages of Northern Areas
Volume 3 Hindko and Gujari
Volume 4 Pashto, Waneci, Ormuri
Volume 5 Languages of Chitral
Series Editor
Clare F. O’Leary, Ph.D.

Sociolinguistic Survey
of
Northern Pakistan
Volume 5
Languages
of
Chitral
Kendall D. Decker
National Institute of Summer Institute

Pakistani Studies of
Quaid-i-Azam University Linguistics
Copyright © 1992 NIPS and SIL
Published by National Institute of Pakistan Studies,

Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
and
Summer Institute of Linguistics, West Eurasia Office
Horsleys Green, High Wycombe, BUCKS
HP14 3XL United Kingdom
First published 1992

Reprinted 2004
ISBN 969-8023-15-1
Price, this volume: Rs.300/-

Price, 5-volume set: Rs.1500/-
To obtain copies of these volumes within Pakistan, contact:

National Institute of Pakistan Studies
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Phone: 92-51-2230791
Fax: 92-51-2230960
To obtain copies of these volumes outside of Pakistan, contact:

International Academic Bookstore
7500 West Camp Wisdom Road
Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Phone: 1-972-708-7404
Fax: 1-972-708-7363
Internet: http://www.sil.org
Email: academic_books@sil.org
REFORMATTING FOR REPRINT BY R. CANDLIN.

CONTENTS
Preface.............................................................................................................. ix
Maps................................................................................................................. xi
Introduction — Clare F. O’Leary.................................................................. xv
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................... xxi
Chapter 1 Introduction to the languages of Chitral ..................................... 1
1. Introduction and purpose ................................................................... 1
2. A short history of linguistic studies related to the
languages of Chitral........................................................................... 2
3. Methodology used for the study of the languages of Chitral ............. 3
4. Other languages spoken in Chitral................................................... 12
5. General conclusions regarding the languages of Chitral.................. 23
Chapter 2 Khowar ........................................................................................ 25
1. Introduction and purpose ................................................................. 25
2. Geographic location......................................................................... 25
3. History of study ............................................................................... 26
4. History of the people ....................................................................... 28
5. Present social factors ....................................................................... 30
6. Linguistic affiliation ........................................................................ 34
7. Reported linguistic variation of Khowar.......................................... 35
8. Relationship by lexical similarity .................................................... 36
9. Interaction with and use of neighboring languages.......................... 38
10. Second language use patterns .......................................................... 39
11. Second language proficiency ........................................................... 40
12. Evidence of language vitality .......................................................... 41
13. Summary and conclusion................................................................. 42
Chapter 3 Yidgha .......................................................................................... 43
3. History of study ............................................................................... 44
6. Linguistic affiliation ........................................................................ 49
7. The related language of Munji......................................................... 50
8. Relationship of Yidgha and Munji................................................... 57
9. Interaction of Yidgha with neighboring languages .......................... 59
10. Second language use and acquisition............................................... 60
Chapter 4 Phalura......................................................................................... 67
3. History of study ............................................................................... 69
6. Linguistic setting ............................................................................. 76
7. The language of Sau ........................................................................ 77
8. Relationship by lexical similarity .................................................... 79
9. Neighboring languages .................................................................... 82
10. Interactions with and use of other languages ................................... 83
12. Marriage customs and language choice ........................................... 89
13. Attitudes toward other languages..................................................... 90
14. Use of Phalura by other language groups ........................................ 91
Chapter 5 Kalasha ........................................................................................ 96
3. History of study ............................................................................... 97
6. Linguistic setting ........................................................................... 103
7. Reported linguistic variation of Kalasha........................................ 104
8. Interaction with neighboring languages......................................... 106
9. Second language use patterns ........................................................ 107
10. Reported second language proficiency .......................................... 110
11. Attitudes toward their own language ............................................. 111
12. Evidence of language vitality ........................................................ 112
13. Summary and conclusion............................................................... 113
Chapter 6 Dameli ........................................................................................ 115
1. Introduction and purpose ............................................................... 115
2. Geographic location....................................................................... 115
3. History of study ............................................................................. 116
4. History of the people ..................................................................... 116
5. Demographic information.............................................................. 118
6. Linguistic affiliation ...................................................................... 119
7. Phonological variation................................................................... 121
8. Interaction with and use of neighboring languages........................ 122
9. Second language proficiency ......................................................... 125
Chapter 7 Eastern Kativiri and Kamviri / Shekhani ............................... 129
2. Eastern Kativiri.............................................................................. 130
3. Kamviri / Shekhani........................................................................ 140
4. Relationship of E. Kativiri and Shekhani....................................... 147
Chapter 8 Gawar-bati................................................................................. 151
2. Geographic location....................................................................... 151
3. History of study ............................................................................. 153
4. History of the people ..................................................................... 153
5. Demographic information.............................................................. 156
6. Linguistic setting ........................................................................... 157
7. Lexical variation among Gawar-Bati-type languages .................... 158
8. Interaction with and use of neighboring languages........................ 159
9. Second language proficiency ......................................................... 161
10. Marriage customs and language choice ......................................... 162
Appendix A Methodologies ......................................................................... 169
Appendix B Chitral word lists..................................................................... 177
Appendix C Texts......................................................................................... 212
C.1 Khowar text................................................................................. 212
C.2 Yidgha text.................................................................................. 216
C.3 Phalura texts................................................................................ 218
C.4 Sawi text ..................................................................................... 229
C.5 Kalasha text................................................................................. 232
C.6 Dameli text.................................................................................. 235
C.7 Eastern Kativiri text .................................................................... 239
C.8 Shekhani text............................................................................... 241
C.9 Gawar-Bati text ........................................................................... 244
Appendix D Chitral survey sample questionnaire..................................... 248
References..................................................................................................... 252
PREFACE
The northern area of Pakistan occupies a unique position on

the cultural and historical map of the world. Its cultural diversity
and ethnic richness make it one of the most fascinating areas for
researchers and scholars. It is, however, its multi-lingual
character that concerns the present study.
These five volumes of the Sociolinguistic Survey of
Northern Pakistan are devoted to the study of its multi-lingual
features. It is slightly more ambitious than the usual studies of
this nature: it attempts to study the various languages and
dialects of this area from a synchronic descriptive approach with
regard to the issue of language versus dialect. In order to verify
the diversity and similarity within these languages and dialects,
linguistic and sociolinguistic data has been used to throw some
light on the relative levels of diversity within and between the
identified varieties. This has been done particularly in the cases
of Gujari with Hazara Hindko, Indus and Swat varieties of
Kohistani and Shina with its linguistic neighbours.
At a macro level, this work is definitely an improvement
over Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India and the subsequent
studies by various scholars. However, though ambitious in scope,
the study does not claim to be exhaustive and comprehensive in
every respect. The study also discusses the impact of external
linguistic families on the linguistic evolution of this area. The
unmistakable imprint of Tibeto-Burman languages, the Iranian
languages, the Indo-European family and the Indo-Aryan family
testify to the fact that the northern areas of Pakistan serve as a
bridge between South Asia, Central Asia, China, and Iran.
Another dimension has also been added to the study of so
many languages and dialects in close proximity: degree of
proficiency in the neighbouring languages. This has been done
through interviews, questionnaires, tests, and observations. The
patterns associated with the proficiency of the neighbouring
languages and the national language, Urdu, are treated in terms
of inter-ethnic contacts, the regional dominance of certain
linguistic groups, and the impact of education and media. It is
quite visible that the old generation of these linguistic groups did
try to preserve the originality of their culture and civilization. But
communication links and the availability of modern techniques
and instruments have their own impact upon the people of these
areas. The new generation of these areas, showing a trend
towards advancement and modernization, may in the long run be
affected, and the preservation of centuries old culture and
civilizations can become a difficult task.
It is hoped that this survey will inspire some studies of this
unique multi-linguistic region of the world. The scholars deserve
congratulations for this painstaking work, which could not have
been completed without requisite enthusiasm, expertise and skill.
This study, of course, will open new avenues for future
researchers. The important point to be kept in mind for future
researchers is, however, to find ways and means of preserving
this centuries old culture and civilization.
Work of such a magnitude is not possible without
cooperation and devotion on the part of scholars and experts in
this field. The National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-
Azam University, Islamabad acknowledges with gratitude the
assistance and cooperation of many who helped the team to
conduct this survey. The Institute acknowledges the commitment
of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (the co-sponsors of this
project), the Ministry of Culture — Government of Pakistan, and
the National Institute of Folk Heritage for providing all sorts of
help to complete this study. The Institute feels honored for
having such association with these institutions as well as the
scholars of repute who devoted their precious time and expertise
in preparing this important study.
The National Institute of Pakistan Studies will feel happy in
extending maximum cooperation to the scholars interested in
exploring further studies in the field.
Dr. Ghulam Hyder Sindhi
Director
National Institute of Pakistan Studies
Quaid-i-Azam University
Islamabad, Pakistan
MAPS
INTRODUCTION
Northern Pakistan is a land of geographic and ethnic

diversity, one of the most multilingual places on the face of the
earth. Spectacular mountain ranges and mighty rivers segment
the area, providing natural barriers which often serve as
isoglosses separating linguistic varieties. Centuries of people
movements across this crossroad of South and Central Asia have
left a complex pattern of languages and dialects, fertile ground
for sociolinguistic investigation.
Twenty-five named languages from within northern

Pakistan are dealt with in the volumes of the Sociolinguistic
Survey of Northern Pakistan. Most languages of the region have
been classified as part of the large Indo-Aryan (or Indic) family.
Two of these have been called members of the “Central Group”
according to the scheme established in Grierson’s Linguistic
Survey of India: Gujari, subgrouped with other Rajasthani
languages, and Domaaki, not even mentioned by Grierson, but
classified as Central by Fussman (1972) and Buddruss (1985). A
third named language, Hindko, was originally included within
the Northwestern Group of Indo-Aryan, among those varieties
which were given the label “Lahnda” (LSI VIII.1). The various
forms called Hindko have been particularly difficult to classify
(Shackle 1979, 1980), showing a wide geographic range, much
linguistic divergence, and some convergence with Panjabi, which
has been classified in the Central Group.
The largest number of Indo-Aryan languages dealt with in

these volumes belong to the Northwestern Group, Dardic branch:
Shina, and its historical relations, Phalura and Ushojo; Indus
Kohistani, and its smaller neighbors, Chilisso, Gowro, and,
presumably, Bateri (which has not been classified); the Swat
Kohistani varieties, Kalami and Torwali; the Chitral group of
Khowar and Kalasha; and the Kunar group, including Dameli
and Gawar-bati. The Nuristani branch accounts for some
languages spoken on the northwestern frontier; within Pakistan
that group is represented by Eastern Kativiri and
Kamviri/Shekhani. This classification outline for members of the
xvi Introduction
Dardic and Nuristani branches is based on several scholarly

contributions (Fussman 1972, Masica 1991, Morgenstierne
1932), but primarily follows Strand (1973).
There are also members of the larger Iranian family
(classification following Payne 1987). Some come from the
Southeastern Iranian group, the major example being Pashto, but
also including the more divergent WaNeci. Others are from the
Southeastern Iranian Pamir subgroup: Wakhi and Yidgha.
OrmuRi has been classified as a Northwestern Iranian language
but shows the influence of being surrounded by Pashto.
Finally, a few linguistic relics remain from outside the
larger Indo-European family, notably the westernmost Tibeto-
Burman language, Balti, and the isolate, Burushaski.
The distinction between language and dialect is always a
fuzzy one, but particularly so in this part of the world. Scholars
have long acknowledged the immense dialect continuum which
characterizes the South Asian region, particularly among the
Indo-Aryan varieties. The difficulties in drawing language
distinctions are compounded by the terminological confusion
found when local speakers use identical names to label their very
different spoken varieties (e.g., Kohistani) or apply the name of a
larger and more prestigious language to cover a very wide range
of speech forms (e.g., Panjabi).
Rather than focussing on linguistic classification or on the
historical relationships between languages, the Sociolinguistic
Survey of Northern Pakistan has taken a synchronic descriptive
approach to this issue of language versus dialect. Linguistic and
sociolinguistic data to verify the diversity and similarity within
the varieties have been collected for all twenty-five named
languages. These data include a consistent 210-item word list
from several locations within a language group. In addition, oral
texts have been recorded and transcribed from many locations;
often these texts have been used to assess the intelligibility of
spoken forms among speakers of divergent dialectal varieties.
Word list comparisons have been made across named languages
in some cases (e.g., Gujari with Hazara Hindko, Indus and Swat
varieties of Kohistani, Shina with its linguistic neighbors), to
Introduction xvii
give some perspective on the relative levels of diversity within

and between named varieties. These comparisons of linguistic
data are balanced by information gathered through interviews
and orally-administered questionnaires regarding ethnic
identification, dialect group contacts, and perceived linguistic
similarity and difference. Although few sharp boundaries are
evident, groupings of relatively similar varieties can be
demonstrated according to the criteria of lexical similarity,
indications of intelligibility, patterns of within-group contact, and
dialect perceptions of the speakers themselves.
The investigation of local language names has provided a
perspective on the linguistic identification of its speakers. Where
it is possible to use the locally preferred name without ambiguity,
those local names have been chosen to designate the linguistic
varieties described in these volumes. Where further clarification
is necessary, language names have included regional
designations or have incorporated the labels given by previous
scholars even though they were not found to be used by the
speakers themselves.
In addition to questions of diversity within languages, there

are higher levels of sociolinguistic variation which are evident in
the prevalence of multilingualism throughout the area. In
general, it seems that members of most language groups in
northern Pakistan exhibit pragmatic attitudes toward adoption of
languages of wider communication. With so many languages in
close proximity, it is commonplace for persons to acquire one or
more of their neighboring languages to some degree of
proficiency. Some studies included tests of proficiency in the
national language, Urdu, or in a regional language of wider
communication such as Pashto or Hindko. Other reports have
investigated reported proficiency and use of other languages
through interviews, orally-administered questionnaires, and
observation. The patterns associated with the use of other
languages are related to such social phenomena as inter-ethnic
contacts, the regional dominance of certain groups, and the
promotion of Urdu through education and the media. A few
language groups indicate signs of declining linguistic vitality and
the preference for more dominant neighboring languages among
xviii Introduction
the younger generations within those groups (e.g., Domaaki,

Chilisso, Gowro, Yidgha). But, for the present, most of the ethnic
languages of northern Pakistan are well-maintained by their
mother-tongue speakers as the most frequently used and
apparently valued means of communication.
A major contribution of the Sociolinguistic Survey of
Northern Pakistan is the collection of the standard 210-item word
list; combining the lists from all twenty-five languages yields a
sum of 127 regional speech forms represented. The phonetically
transcribed lists for the reports covered in each volume are
presented in the relevant appendices. Story texts for the
languages represented are presented as well, with a rough word-
for-word gloss and a free translation. In total, there are forty-nine
transcribed texts in these volumes. This fieldwork has not
undergone thorough grammatical and phonological analysis; it is
included to support the conclusions presented in each report and
as data for future scholarship.
In terms of methodology, this research makes a contribution

as well. A multipronged approach was utilized in each study,
combining some or all of the following: participant observation,
interviews and orally-administered questionnaires, testing of
second language proficiency, testing of comprehension of related
varieties, and the comparison of word lists by a standardized
method measuring phonetic similarity. Overall, the data show
great internal consistency, with many types of self-reports from
questionnaires and interviews corresponding well with more
objective measures such as test results and lexical similarity
counts.
Each report reflects a slightly different focus. Some

emphasize interdialectal variation and intelligibility (e.g., Balti,
Burushaski, Pashto, Shina, Wakhi); others include this focus, but
concentrate more than the rest on assessing the proficiency and
use of other languages (e.g., the reports on the languages of
Indus and Swat Kohistan, Gujari, Hindko). The high
concentration of languages in the Chitral region make
multilingualism and ethnolinguistic vitality a primary concern in
that volume. Issues of declining vitality are of critical concern for
Introduction xix
Domaaki. One language included in this research has not been

previously described or reported: Ushojo, a variant of Shina
located in the Chail Valley of Swat District.
It has been a privilege to work with representatives of each
of these ethnolinguistic groups in carrying out this survey
research. These volumes are offered in the hope that they will
provide a holistic overview of the sociolinguistic situation in
northern Pakistan and will stimulate further such work in the
years to come.
Clare F. O’Leary
Series Editor
References
Buddruss, Georg. 1985. Linguistic research in Gilgit and Hunza: Some results
and perspectives. Journal of Central Asia 8:1.27-37.
Fussman, Gerard. 1972. Atlas linguistique des parlers dardes et kafirs. 2 vols.
Paris: Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient.
Grierson, George A. 1903-28. Linguistic survey of India, vols. I-XI. Calcutta.
[reprinted 1968, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.]
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Morgenstierne, Georg. 1932. Report on a linguistic mission to north-western
India. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning.
Payne, J. R. 1987. Iranian languages. The world’s major languages, ed. by
Bernard Comrie, 514-522. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shackle, C. 1979. Problems of classification in Pakistan Panjab. Transactions
of the Philological Society 1979, 191-210.
———. 1980. Hindko in Kohat and Peshawar. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 43:3.482-510.
Strand, Richard F. 1973. Notes on the Nuristani and Dardic languages. Journal
of the American Oriental Society 93:3.297-305.
xxi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments for the Series
The Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan was carried

out by researchers from the Summer Institute of Linguistics in
conjunction with Pakistani scholars and research assistants. The
survey began in 1986 under the auspices of the Ministry of
Culture, through the National Institute of Folk Heritage, Lok
Virsa. Arrangements for the project were greatly facilitated by
the kind help of His Excellency Ambassador Jamsheed
K. A. Marker, who served at the Embassy of Pakistan,
Washington, D. C. at the time the project was begun. Grateful
appreciation is also due to Dr. G. A. K. Niazi, former Education
Attache, Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, D. C. The Director
of Research for Lok Virsa, Dr. Adam Nayyar, gave oversight and
direction, particularly in the early stages of the project; his
assistance is appreciated. Dr. Naveed-i-Rahat, chairman of the
Department of Anthropology at Quaid-i-Azam University, was
supportive of the research goals of this survey and gave advice
concerning the project. Through her help, several graduate
students from the department became involved in the project as
research assistants in the study of the ethnolinguistic minorities
in northern Pakistan.
The National Institute of Pakistan Studies of Quaid-i-Azam
University has a continuing commitment to the promotion of
quality research; without the assistance of NIPS, these volumes
would not have been completed. Special thanks are due to
Professor Fateh Mohammad Malik, who made initial
arrangements for the publication of these studies, and to
Dr. Ghulam Haider Sindhi, who has worked with the research
team to see the publication through to completion.
We have benefited from interaction with scholars interested
in linguistic studies in Pakistan. In particular, we have received
invaluable input from Dr. Aurangzeb Shah, former chairman of
the Department of English at the University of Peshawar. He
gave assistance in many practical ways and also introduced us to
young scholars who participated in the research project. The
xxii Acknowledgments
support of Dr. Sahibzada M. Riaz, current chairman of the

department, is appreciated as well.
Dr. Calvin Rensch served as the project director for the
Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan. Ongoing leadership
was also provided by Mr. Donald Gregson and Mr. Daniel
Hallberg. Mr. Donald Johnson gave timely assistance in the
initial stages of the project. The preparation of the final
manuscripts was coordinated by Miss Carla Radloff, who was
ably assisted by Mrs. Sandra Decker. Mr. Peter Mielke and
Ms. Beverly Garland each provided critically needed help in the
preparation and checking of these volumes. Special thanks are
due to Mr. Kendall Decker for map production and cover design.
It has been a privilege to work with such a team of colleagues.
Clare F. O’Leary
Acknowledgments for this volume
This study could not have been completed without the

dedicated assistance of Pakistani co-workers. I wish especially to
thank Mr. Imtiaz Afridi, Mr. Fazal-ur-Rahman, and Mr.
Rahmanullah Shinwari who assisted in interpretation, data
collection, and for the help they gave with life in general through
the two summers in Chitral.
My gratitude is also extended to Mrs. Linda Stewart for the
many hours spent checking over this volume and for her
suggestions which improved the volume greatly.
Kendall D. Decker
July 1992
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE LANGUAGES OF

CHITRAL
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This study of the languages of Chitral was concerned with

several sociolinguistic issues. The first purpose was to confirm
the geographic locations of the languages previously identified as
being spoken in Chitral. A second purpose was to investigate
language variation. Through the collection of descriptive
linguistic data (word lists and texts), and by reviewing the
literature of previous studies, comparisons were made revealing
linguistic similarity or divergence. A third purpose was to assess
the general language vitality of the linguistic communities.
Evidence considered in this aspect of the study included reported
language use in various social domains, intermarriage between
language groups, and the relative amounts of contact between
groups. Supporting sociolinguistic data were collected regarding
reported proficiency in more dominant languages, and evidence
of language attitudes favoring or inhibiting assimilation.
Other capable linguists, such as Morgenstierne, Grjunberg,
etc., have done excellent work in laying solid foundations
concerning the phonological and grammatical structures of the
languages of Chitral and the Hindu Kush region. This study does
not attempt to address these linguistic concerns, except in the
presentation of lexical similarity between collected word lists.
Texts and word lists which were collected for this study of the
languages of Chitral are presented in the appendices.
2 Languages of Chitral
2. A SHORT HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC STUDIES

RELATED TO THE LANGUAGES OF CHITRAL
The history of the study of the languages of northern

Pakistan has been one of a few individuals slowly building on the
work of their predecessors and always working with scant
information. Often the data gathering has been accomplished by
brief dashes into the rugged land of the Hindu Kush, Karakoram,
and Himalayan mountain ranges. Even though the researchers
involved in this present study were able to live for several years
in Pakistan, the data collection trips still maintained this tradition
of short dashes into the mountains. As the earlier investigators
had to deal with limited access, this present researcher was also
occasionally unable to enter some of the areas where a certain
language or dialect is spoken.
There are ancient reports of the tribes inhabiting this
mountainous region. Grierson (LSI VIII.2:1) discusses reports of
people living in the mountains north of Kashmir called Darada in
ancient Greek and Sanskrit literature. Jettmar (1980) and Dani
(1989) have presented evidence of the early history of the
Northern Areas of what is now Pakistan. As for the histories of
the individual tribes, little is known with certainty.
Morgenstierne (1932) began to gather traditions and linguistic
evidence which began to paint a picture of the movements and
relationships of languages and people in the Hindu Kush region.
Some of these traditions were collected by men who lived for
some time amongst the people, such as Biddulph (1880), O’Brien
(1895), Robertson (1896), and Gurdon (cited in Morgenstierne
1932).
The earliest samples of the languages were collected outside
of the region.1 In 1878 Biddulph became the first European to
enter Chitral2 (Keay 1979:82,106). He (Biddulph 1880) collected
word lists from Narisati (Gawar-bati), Khowar, Bushgali
1
For example Burnes 1838 and Leitner 1876 (cited in Biddulph 1880);
see Grierson LSI VIII.2:30-32 for a more extensive list.
2
He was followed several years later, in 1885, by W. McNair, who made
a short trip into the Bashgal Valley, becoming the first European to enter what
is now called Nuristan (Keay 1979:120).
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
(Eastern Kativiri), and Yidghah (Yidgha). The next major

contribution to the study of the languages of the Hindu Kush
region came out of Morgenstierne’s visit to Chitral in 1929,
documented in books (1932, 1938) and numerous articles (1941,
1942, 1945, 1950, etc.3). With the foundation for linguistic
studies laid by Morgenstierne, other linguists have continued
with studies of individual languages.4
Although the focus of this previous research was more in
the direction of collection and analysis for the purpose of
determining historical descriptions of the languages and their
affiliations, they often gathered some sociolinguistic-type
information as well. These glimpses have been useful in the
direction of this study. This study builds upon these earlier works
by enlarging the area of knowledge of the sociolinguistic
environment of these languages. The earlier reports are also
useful when compared to information on the present situation for
estimating population growth, trends in people movements, and
indications of change in ethnolinguistic vitality.
3. METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE STUDY OF THE

3.1 Literature review and map information
Due to the remote location, rugged environment, and

difficulty of data collection in northern Pakistan, it is of the
utmost importance that research begins with a review of the
literature. Although there have not been many people who have
done research in northern Pakistan, the numbers are growing5
3
For a complete listing of Morgenstierne’s work, see Morgenstierne 1973
and Kristiansen 1978.
4
For a listing of the most recent studies, other than those works listed in
the References section of this volume, see Fussman 1972 and 1989, Strand
1973, Schmidt and Koul 1984, and Jones 1966.
5
There have been several graduate students from American and European
universities (especially German) doing research in the languages of northern
Pakistan, although the results of their research is frequently difficult to find.
There are also an increasing number of Pakistanis doing research in these areas;
and the work that many of these people have done is quite
thorough and insightful.6 Finding some of this information can
be difficult. The most useful source of information for this study
was found in the University of London, School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS) library. There are excellent libraries in
other locations. In each of the chapters a short review of the
significant studies is included.
The maps are adapted from the map in Edelberg and Jones
(1979), Nuristan, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maps
Series U502, 1:250,000 scale. For visual ease and simplicity
many unrelated features have been eliminated from the maps.
The geographic names and spellings used in the maps and

texts can often force difficult and arbitrary choices. For example:
the area where the Bashgal Valley meets the Kunar River in
Afghanistan has many names: Landay Sin, Satrgrom, and
Narisat. A village on the west side of the Chitral River a short
distance south of Drosh is called [suwir]; it is sometimes spelled
Sweer, Suwir, or Swir. Rivers sometimes have different names
depending on the territory through which they are flowing; the
Chitral River in southern Chitral becomes the Kunar River in
Afghanistan. Different authors have used different spellings for
village names. In this study the attempt has been made to use the
most common spellings, or romanized spellings which most
closely resemble the phonetic representation of the name.
3.2 Choice of data collection sites, respondents, and co-

workers
Respondents interviewed for this study were simply the
individuals who were willing to help. Almost all of the
respondents were men. The villages used as data collection sites
frequently were determined by being: where the jeeps could take
us, the villages of willing participants, or the only places for
often their work can be found in Pakistani university libraries or bookstores in

the larger cities.
6
In fact, the data that have been collected in the country have provided
sufficient material for a few scholars (such as Turner) to engage themselves in
lifelong research in the languages of South Asia without even setting foot in
Pakistan.
which permission could be obtained. For the language groups

which are wholly in Pakistan (Khowar, Kalasha, Dameli, and
Phalura), there was an attempt to get a wide sampling of
information so as to gain an accurate understanding of the whole
language community. The other language groups extend into
Afghanistan (Gawar-bati, E. Kativiri/Shekhani) or are closely
connected groups separated by the Afghanistan-Pakistan border
(Munji and Yidgha). The amount of information available on
these groups was more limited.
For this Chitral survey, two of the Pakistani co-workers held
graduate degrees from the University of Peshawar and the third
had post-matriculation education. Two of the men were Pashto-
speakers and one was a Khowar-speaking Chitrali.
Communication with these co-workers was in Urdu and English.
For this study they were given introductory training in phonetics,
in the appropriate administration of questionnaires, and in the use
of tape recording equipment for the collection of linguistic data.
Their knowledge of regional norms of cultural behavior was
invaluable.
3.3 Observation
Observation is useful for identifying areas which need

further investigation. Sometimes it can give clues toward
understanding a certain situation, but one must be careful not to
base conclusions simply on limited observation. Observation was
used to see if people commonly participated in bilingual
activities and to initially identify the kinds of situations in which
they used a second language rather than their own. Impressions
gained from observation, when pieced together with other
quantitative data, are helpful in clarifying the larger picture of the
interactions of languages in society. In addition, much of the
background information included in the Social Factors sections
of each chapter was gathered from observation.
3.4 Word list collection
For this study a standard list of 210 lexical items was used
for elicitation of word lists.7 This list included various classes of
nouns, adjectives, numerals, and verbs. Usually word lists were
collected from one participant and then checked with another
participant from the same location. If the second participant gave
a different response from the first participant, then the
discrepancy was investigated. Word lists were also collected
from the glossary sections of several articles to compare what
other researchers had elicited for the same language. Turner
(1966-71), A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan
Languages, was especially helpful for gathering information
from the word lists collected by previous scholars, and for
eliminating some suspicious lexical items from word lists
collected in this study. Most word lists were tape recorded for
further checking if necessary.
The phonetic system used is similar to that used by
Morgenstierne and Turner with some slight modification for
specific phonological features.8
3.5 Word list comparison
Word list comparison has been used to provide an empirical

measure of the amount of lexical divergence between speech
varieties. These numbers, combined with the opinions of
respondents, give preliminary indications of the possibility of
comprehension difficulties between different speech
communities. The identification of the boundaries between
linguistic varieties is important for determining the locations and
sizes of speech communities. If people are not speaking a similar
variety, they cannot be considered to form a unified speech
community which is maintaining one common language.
7
The 210-item elicitation list is included in appendix A.
8
A complete chart showing the phonetic transcription system used in this
study is presented in appendix A.
A question remains as to how much difference is required

between speech varieties to say that the speakers form different
speech communities on the basis of limited intelligibility. Such a
question cannot be answered on the sole basis of word list
comparisons, but, in general, it is felt that when lexical similarity
decreases to around 60 percent or below, there is probably also a
notable loss of comprehension between the communities
involved. The lexical similarity percentages calculated for this
study are only used as possible indications of divergence or unity
in speech varieties; they must be considered with other
information and testing for greater confidence.
3.6 Text collection
Texts were recorded in many locations and transcriptions

and rough translations were attempted.9 A few of these texts
were played for participants to get their impressions and opinions
of other speech varieties. It is not suggested that such informal
procedures be used in determining intelligibility, but one can
gain preliminary kinds of information through such methods.
After hearing a text, the participant was asked if he could
identify the location in which the text had been recorded and if
he thought the speech of that location was a good form of his
language. In a few cases the participant was asked to retell the
story in his own words to get an indication of his comprehension.
3.7 Interviews and questionnaires
3.7.1 Interviews
In this study several different types of interactions with

participants are described as interviews. There were some
interviews which lasted no more than five minutes and pursued a
9
All texts are found in appendix C. It should be noted that these texts, the
product of rough field work, have been transcribed and translated as carefully
as possible. Some amount of variation is expected, however, due to idiolectal
features of the narrators, to the informal style of the taped narratives, or to
inaccuracies of transcription and translation.
specific item of information. There were several interviews

which involved an entire evening of conversation which
wandered through numerous topics. Most of the interviews were
conducted in the format of oral administration of a prepared
questionnaire. Interviews which required the Pashtoon co-
workers to assist with translation were conducted in Pashto, or
sometimes Urdu. The Chitrali co-worker conducted numerous
interviews in Khowar. There were a few interviews conducted in
English. R. Trail assisted in several interviews with Kalasha
participants by translating questions into Kalasha.
Information gathered through interviews which did not

follow the format of the questionnaires was tabulated with the
questionnaire responses when the information gained answered a
relevant question.
3.7.2 Questionnaires
The first questionnaire designed for this study in 1989 had

fifteen items. This was later expanded to a larger questionnaire10
which was adapted specifically for each language. The
questionnaires were designed to gather a variety of information,
including personal information, dialect information, language use
situations, second language choices, travel information, and
questions designed to investigate language attitudes. All
questionnaires were administered orally, with the researchers and
co-workers recording written responses based on participants’
answers.
The primary interest was the investigation of the types of

situations, or domains, in which people use a second language. In
each domain the individual has a choice about which language he
or she will use. The domain typically has a somewhat limited and
specialized set of vocabulary and style of speech. The language
used in a religious setting, like the mosque, is probably not
interchangeable with the language used on a logging work site.
The people one has contact with in the bazaar are not necessarily
10
A sample questionnaire is presented in appendix D.
the same people one meets at the work place. As commonly

happens in South Asia, the people of Chitral often use different
languages for different domains. The ability of an individual to
communicate in another language in a certain domain does not
necessarily mean that the person is fluent, or fully bilingual, in
that language. Some domains do not require a high level of
second language proficiency. Some domains are encountered
outside of the village and therefore do not directly affect village
language use. Domains in which the individual must choose
another language are domains in which the first language is not
useful. Another language may be chosen in specific situations to
communicate with outsiders, while the mother tongue is
maintained for in-group functions. When another language is
chosen for in-group functions, especially in the domain of the
home, then there may be concern for the long term maintenance
of the first language.
The second language proficiency of participants in this

study was not tested. Nor was it possible to evaluate the
pervasiveness of bilingualism in light of a demographic profile of
the various communities. Therefore, the issues of bilingualism
were investigated through questionnaires, observation, and
occasional evaluations from co-workers. Questions concerning
second language usage approached the topic from different
angles: what second languages the people speak, how the people
learn their second languages, self evaluations of second language
proficiency, second language usage and proficiency of women
and children, and domains where second languages are used.
Due to their involvement in other language research

projects, the Pashtoon co-workers who worked on this study had
had some exposure to bilingualism testing. Based on their
experience and their understanding of differing levels of second
language proficiency, they were often asked to give their
opinions on the participants’ abilities in Pashto. While this
method may not be totally adequate by itself, it gives some
indication of the relative levels of Pashto proficiency of some of
the minority language speakers involved in this research.
To explore the area of attitudes, the focus of attention is on

the prestige or stigma which people associate with linguistic
varieties. Understanding people’s attitudes about language is
always a difficult matter to grasp, especially through the use of a
questionnaire. For this study, the responses related to attitudes
are recorded and evaluated in the context of the rest of the data to
provide a greater understanding of the sociolinguistic
environment of Chitral.
Information on marriage patterns may give some indication

of language attitudes. Frequently marriage is allowed with
certain groups but not with other groups. Primarily, the attitudes
are for or against the people group as a whole, but the use of that
group’s language can be connected to those attitudes. When a
husband and wife speak different languages there is a question as
to which language the children will speak. This choice can be a
crucial factor in the continuation of the mother tongue. The
prevailing custom is that women learn the language of the
husband after marriage and use his language with their children.
In some of the language groups, it was found that men expressed
a preference for marrying Khowar-speaking women so that their
children will be Khowar speakers. This shows the degree of
prestige that is attributed to Khowar. Intermarriage also brings
contact with the relatives of the spouse, which often results in a
situation encouraging further acquisition of the second language.
3.8 Population figures
There are no accurate census figures which count people by

their mother tongue in Pakistan. In this volume, the information
provided for population estimates for each of the language
groups is only meant to give an approximate size of the language
community, i.e., to indicate that this is a group of about 6000
people, rather than 100,000 or 500 people. The three main
sources of figures for population estimates were: the 1981 census
figures from the Chitral District Council offices,11 population
estimates presented in the publications of other researchers, and
11
These figures were reapportioned in 1987 for local body elections.
the opinions of the participants. These figures usually correlated

closely enough to give a rough approximation of the size of the
language communities. Wherever possible the figures are given
for specific villages to show how the population is distributed
within the area where the language is spoken. Frequently a range
has been given to approximate the population size. Chart 1 lists
the population estimates for speakers of the languages of Chitral.
Chart 1
Estimated populations for language groups of Chitral12
Eastern Kativiri 3,700 to 5,100
Shekhani 1,500 to 2,000
Dameli 5,000
Gawar-bati 1,300 to 1,500
Kalasha 2,900 to 5,700
Phalura 8,600
Yidgha 5,000 to 6,000
Madaglashti Persian 2,057 to 3,000
Wakhi 450 to 900
Gujari 3,000
Pashto 3,000
Khowar 173,000 to 200,000
Rounded Total: 209,500 to 243,800
3.9 Interpretation of data
On-site data collection for each of the languages was often

limited, prompting the realization that more time in a language
community would be needed to fully understand the complex
interactions of language usage and to become better acquainted
with the language itself. It was hoped that, even with this limited
study, at least a good overview of the sociolinguistic factors at
12
These figures do not include Pakistanis from other regions who are
assigned to duties in Chitral, refugees from other countries, or speakers of these
languages outside of Chitral.
work within the linguistic environment of Chitral could be

formulated. With the various types and sources of information
that have been collected, there are good indications of what the
true sociolinguistic situation is. No one piece of information is
conclusive by itself. The purpose for collecting different types of
information from different sources is to see if the information
correlates and supports the other data to which it is compared.
The information presented in this report is not intended to
be the final word on the topic. It is hoped that an accurate
representation of the situation at this point in time has been
presented and that it will be useful toward future research.
4. OTHER LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN CHITRAL
The languages covered in this section were not included in

this study. However, they are languages which are spoken in
Chitral and, therefore, have some effect upon the sociolinguistic
environment of the region. The information presented here is
mainly taken from published sources. Some additional
information on these languages was gathered to supplement the
research discussed in the subsequent chapters.
4.1 Persian / Farsi
Persian must be looked at in several different ways in

Chitral. There is the Madaglashti dialect of Persian spoken in the
village of Madaglasht in the upper Shishi Koh Valley. This
community has been present in Chitral for over 200 years. There
are also a large number of Persian speaking Afghan refugees
living in the Garam Chishma area of the Lutkuh Valley. But even
previous to the influx of refugees, there was a strong Persian
influence from traders coming into the area and speaking the
Badakhshani dialect of Persian. Persian was also the official
language of Chitral until 1952 (Munnings, 1990:18), so it has
had some influence on the languages and culture of Chitral. The
ability to use some Persian is considered prestigious. It is
frequently used in poetry and some religious books.
4.1.1 Geographic location
Madaglasht is located at the northern end of the Shishi Koh

Valley in southern Chitral (see map 2), approximately 30 miles
(45 kilometers) north of Drosh.
4.1.2 Name of the language
According to Mackenzie (1969), Persian is commonly

called Farsi in Iran. The dialect spoken in much of central
Afghanistan is called Dari. Another dialect in northern
Afghanistan and the former Soviet Union is called Tajiki. People
often refer to the name of their language simply as the language
of the place they are from: Kabuli, Badakhshani, and
Madaglashti. Different names should not necessarily be
considered as linguistically different varieties.
4.1.3 History
The only study of the Madaglashti variety of Persian was

done by D. L. R. Lorimer in 1922.
Lorimer (1922:127-128) reports the following information
regarding the history of the people of Madaglasht:
This Persian settlement is of modern origin. Four
families are said to have immigrated to Chitral from
Zibak in Badakhshan. They found employment with
the Mir i Kalan, the great Kator Mehtar of Chitral, as
iron-workers, but depressed by poverty, some, or all,
of them wandered on further afield to Chutiatan on the
Malakand-Chitral road in Dir territory. There two of
their number died and were buried, and the remainder
were invited back to Chitral by the Mehtar, who gave
them land to settle on in Madaglasht, where they
continue to exercise their craft as iron-workers. Six
generations have elapsed since the immigration, and
the colony has increased to some thirty families.
Lorimer dates these events six generations previous, which

would be about 1740. Israr-ud-Din (1969) concurs that these
people came from Badakhshan about 200 years ago.
4.1.4 Population distribution
Lorimer (1922:128) estimated that there were thirty families

in Madaglasht. Israr-ud-Din (1969) reports that there are about
3000 speakers of Madaglashti. The Chitral District Council
(1987) reports a population of 2057 people in Madaglasht.
4.1.5 Linguistic relationship
Persian is an Iranian language in the Indo-Iranian branch of

the Indo-European family. Lorimer (1922:128) tried to work with
his Madaglashti informants through the use of what he called
“the colloquial of Modern Persia”. He said that they had
difficulty understanding him. He felt that Madaglashti is similar
to the Badakhshani dialect and that further study would reveal
both of these dialects would be found to be similar to Kabuli
Persian (Dari).
4.1.6 Interaction with neighboring languages
There are Khowar- and Gujari-speaking villages down the

valley from Madaglasht in the Shishi Koh Valley. Lorimer
(1922) said that the Madaglashti informants he worked with were
quite familiar with Khowar.
4.2 Wakhi
In Chitral, Wakhi is spoken by a small group living in the

far northeastern end of the Yarkhun Valley. (See map 2.)
Elsewhere in Pakistan it is spoken in the Shimshal Valley to the
east of the Gojal area north of Hunza. (See Backstrom and
Radloff 1992: map 2.) There is a population concentration in
Gojal and in the valleys to the north extending to the Pakistan

border. There are also Wakhi speakers in the northern Yasin and
Ishkoman Valleys west of Gilgit. It was traditionally spoken in
the Wakhan Corridor area of Afghanistan, but since the war in
Afghanistan, there are reports (Nyrop 1986:106) that the entire
local population left that area. Possibly the largest group of
Wakhi speakers are located in the Gorno-Badakhshan region in
the former Soviet Union and along the far western border of the
Xinkiang Province of China from Pakistan to Kashgar.
4.2.2 History of study
The number of studies on Wakhi has been growing through

the last century. In 1876 R.B. Shaw (cited in Lorimer 1958)
published a book on Wakhi and other languages which he called
Ghalchah languages. He did not mention where his information
came from, so it cannot be compared with information from
other areas to determine variation. From 1921 to 1935 D. L. R.
Lorimer (1958) collected information from participants from
Gulmit in Gojal. He also had information from one man from
Sarhad, a village in the northeastern end of the Wakhan Corridor.
His data were supplemented by information collected by
Lieutenant R. Carter in the Ishkoman, Yasin, and Yarkhun
Valleys. In 1929, Morgenstierne (1932) collected information
from men coming from villages in the Wakhan Corridor. In
1936, S. I. Klimchitskiy (cited in Lorimer 1958) published an
article on the Wakhi in the Soviet Pamirs. In 1988, A. L.
Grjunberg published two volumes on Wakhi; the second volume
is a two-way Wakhi-French dictionary. Other research has been
done by Skold, Geiger, Zarubin (all cited in Lorimer 1958),
Schomberg (1935, 1938), and Shahrani (1979). There has not
been any study that has integrated information on the entire
Wakhi community.
Wakhi, as spoken elsewhere in northern Pakistan, is covered
more thoroughly by a study included in volume 2 of this series
(Backstrom 1992).
4.2.3 History of the people
Morgenstierne (1938:435) says that Wakhi “is derived from

the dialect of the very earliest wave of Iranian settlers in these
regions, and that it has developed in relative isolation for a
considerable period.” There are no reports of the earliest
movement of the Wakhi into Chitral. However, Lorimer (1958:7-
10) and Schomberg (1935:288-289) have documented the
immigration of the Wakhi into other valleys in northern Pakistan
from about 1860 to 1935.
4.2.4 Related social factors
Israr-ud-Din (1969) reports that the Wakhi are involved

primarily in raising livestock but they also do some farming.
They generally live in high valleys.
The Chitral District Council (1987) gives the figure of 504

residents of Baroghil, which is a predominantly Wakhi-speaking
village. Israr-ud-Din (1969) says that the average family has
eight members and that Baroghil has a total Wakhi-speaking
population of 450. Inayatullah Faizi (1988) gives a population of
900 Wakhi in the Yarkhun Valley.
4.2.5 Linguistic setting
Wakhi is an archaic Iranian language in the Indo-European

family. It is in fact distinct from its neighboring Iranian
languages, showing isolated development and little borrowing of
words. It is placed in a group of languages which are called
Pamir languages (Comrie 1981:165-166); this group was called
Ghalchah by Shaw (1876) and Grierson (LSI X).
4.2.6 Dialectal Variation
Both Morgenstierne (1938:442) and Lorimer (1958:3)

presume that there is some dialectal difference between the
widely distant Wakhi locations. Both state that there is still too
little known to make much of a comparison. Words which
Lorimer (1958:3) read to his informants in Hunza from Shaw’s

earlier work were identified as being Sarikoli, which is in the
Pamir region.
4.2.7 Relationships with neighboring languages
Morgenstierne (1938:441-2) notes that the words shared

between Wakhi and Khowar are of an interesting nature. These
words give evidence that a large population of Khowar speakers
were previously in frequent contact with Wakhi speakers.
Morgenstierne suggests that this was probably by way of
Baroghil Pass. However, Israr-ud-Din (1990:10) notes that long
ago there were passes between the Mulkhow and Torkhow
Valleys, and the Wakhan Corridor. Morgenstierne (1932:68)
noted that the speech of several of his language helpers was very
mixed with other neighboring Pamir languages.
4.2.8 Second language proficiency
The Wakhi are reported to use Tajik Persian as their literary

language in the former Soviet Union (Akiner 1983:379). There
were no reports regarding the Khowar proficiency of the Wakhi
in the Yarkhun Valley.
4.3 Gujari
Gujari is spread across a very large area from India to

Afghanistan. There is a difference between where Gujars live
and where the language is spoken, since a great number of ethnic
Gujars on the plains no longer speak Gujari. In Chitral District,
Gujari is spoken in approximately fourteen villages in the Shishi
Koh Valley north of Drosh. There are also groups of Gujars
living around Drosh and in villages south of Drosh along the
Chitral River to Arandu. Nagar is reported to have the largest
concentration of Gujars in the Chitral Valley. There are a few
families of Gujari speakers in the Bumboret and Ashret Valleys.
Edelberg and Jones (1979:100) report Gujars moving into

Afghanistan from the Lutkuh Valley, but the presence of Gujars
northwest of Chitral town was not confirmed in this study.
4.3.2 History of study
Grierson (LSI IX.4) included samples of Gujari from

Kashmir and from the Hazara and Swat Districts of present day
Pakistan. Morgenstierne (1932:63) made mention of Gujars in
Chitral, but other than checking a few words he did no further
study on Gujari. In 1982, Sharma produced a grammar of Gujari
(Gojri) as spoken in Poonch District in Jammu and Kashmir.
A more thorough study of Gujari in northern Pakistan is
found in volume 3 of this series (Hallberg and O’Leary 1992).
Included there are data on Chitral Gujari which were collected
from participants from Tharo, Ashriki, Dambirga, and Bela in the
Shishi Koh Valley, and from Drosh, Domshigur, and Nagar (see
map 4) in the main Chitral Valley. Data was collected at various
times from 1987 to 1990.
4.3.3 History of the people
Some scholars (Grierson LSI IX.4, Sharma 1982) believe

that Gujari spread from the Rajasthan area in India northward
into the mountains. Israr-ud-Din (1969:55) says that the spread
of Gujars in southern Chitral has been within this century and
that they came from Dir, Swat, and Hazara areas. Their entry into
Chitral must have been earlier than the beginning of this century,
however, because Robertson (1896:297-8) reported that in the
late 1800s the Mehtar of Chitral was responsible for moving
Gujars into the neighboring region of Nuristan in Afghanistan.
4.3.4 Related social factors
The Gujars of Chitral living in the Shishi Koh Valley are

mostly involved in goatherding; there are also some involved in
farming. Gujars were observed herding goats for Kalasha in the
Bumboret Valley. Israr-ud-Din (1969:55) reports that the Gujars
do not own their own land but lease it from others. Those that
have moved down around Drosh work as servants and laborers.
Israr-ud-Din (1969:55) estimates that there are 3000 speakers of
Gujari in Chitral. A participant in this study from Nagar reported
that about 60 of the 150 homes in Nagar are Gujar.
4.3.5 Linguistic setting
According to Grierson (LSI IX.4) and Bailey (1908, cited in

Sharma 1982) Gujari is thought to be related to Rajasthani in
India. It is an Indo-Aryan (Indic) language in the Indo-European
family.
4.3.6 Interaction with neighboring languages
In Chitral, the Gujar villages are surrounded by villages of

Khowar speakers. There are about 18 Khowar-speaking villages
alternating in position with the 14 Gujar villages in the Shishi
Koh Valley. Five or six of the Gujar villages in the Shishi Koh
Valley also have Pashto speakers living in them. There are a few
families of Gujars living in Phalura-speaking Ashret and
Kalasha-speaking Bumboret Valley. In the lower Chitral Valley,
south of Mirkhani, there are several small clusters of homes of
Pashto speakers living near the Gujars, as well as Shekhani,
Dameli, and Gawar-bati speakers. Respondents reported that
very few speakers of other languages learn to speak Gujari,
although some claim to be able to understand some Gujari.
4.4 Kirghiz
Inayatullah Faizi (1989b) reports that there are a few

Kirghiz13 families living in the area of Baroghil Pass at the
northeastern end of Chitral District. (See map 2.) The Kirghiz
13
In the same article, Faizi mentions that there are Sarikoli Ismailis living
nearby, but nothing more is known about these families. Sarikoli is a Pamir
language in the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. The majority of
Sarikoli speakers live in the far western end of the Xinjiang-Uygur
Autonomous Region of China.
were dislocated from Andijan in the Kirgizskaya Republic in the

former Soviet Union. The main body of Kirghiz speakers spreads
over a large area of the Kirgizskaya Republic and the Xinjiang-
Uygur Autonomous Region in China. They reportedly came to
Chitral in the 1940s as a result of Soviet military raids upon their
homeland. According to Faizi, they live a difficult life relying on
help from neighboring Wakhi speakers. Kirghiz is a Turkic
language in the Altaic family. The Kirghiz people are Sunni
Muslims.
4.5 Pashto
Pashto has not been studied as a language of Chitral.

However, in recent years, it has been spreading into Chitral and
influencing the sociolinguistic situation; thus some information
concerning Pashto is applicable to this study. D. Hallberg (1992)
has reported on the dialects of Pashto in volume 4 of this series.
Pashto, the language of the Pashtoons, is spoken over a

large area of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Chitral, there are
small, scattered Pashtoon villages, or simply clusters of homes,
along the Chitral River between Langorbat and Mirkhani. (See
map 4.) This section of the Chitral River runs through a narrow
gorge and there is little arable land. In this study, there were
reports of Pashtoon families living in Arandu, the Damel Valley,
Ashret, Suwir, Ziaret, Drosh, Chitral town, and in the Urtsun
Valley. Israr-ud-Din (1969:55) reports that there are also
Pashtoons living in Mastuj and Reshun in northern Chitral, and
Bach Uch in the Arkari Valley. (See map 2.)
4.5.2 Related historical information
Biddulph (1880:163) reports that in the 15th and 16th

centuries the Pashtoons began invading the Kunar Valley in
Afghanistan and the Panjkora (Dir) Valley in Pakistan. This
forced some of the smaller language groups to move north,
particularly the Gawar. Morgenstierne (1932:67) reported that in
1929 there were only a few Pashto-speaking settlers in the Ashret

Valley, possibly having moved there from Dir. Several
Pashtoons were interviewed for this study; they reported that
their families had lived in Chitral for many years, probably
immigrating in the 1930s.
4.5.3 Present social factors
Israr-ud-Din (1969:55) reports that while the 3000 Pashto

speakers comprise only about one percent of the population in
Chitral, they control about eighty-five percent of the trade in the
district; thus he observes that Pashtoons “try their best to
dominate the rest of the population commercially.” Munnings
(1990:17) notes that in past decades the Pashtoons who
immigrated to Chitral for business would learn Khowar to be
able to communicate with their customers, but that more recent
immigrants and refugees do not learn Khowar. Instead, their
customers learn Pashto to communicate with them. Pashtoons
generally prefer marriages within their own group, but many of
the non-Pashtoon respondents reported having Pashtoon
relatives.
Munnings (1990:21) observes that people in Chitral seem to
have a general dislike for Pashtoons and their language. Some
Chitralis reported that they prefer to use Urdu or Khowar with a
Pashtoon unless he is monolingual in Pashto. However, they will
learn Pashto if they are in a situation which requires it, such as
living in Peshawar or some areas of southern Chitral.
4.6 Urdu
In Chitral, Urdu is not spoken as a mother tongue except

possibly by a few merchants and government personnel who are
temporarily residing there. It is the national language of Pakistan,
the medium of higher education in government schools, the
language of many government functions, and the language of
wider communication throughout the country, including
newspapers and radio. To gain a coveted civil service position
one must have a knowledge of Urdu, but outside of its use in
infrequent civil interactions (such as speaking with a policeman
from the Panjab Province), in school or for reading and writing

most people in Chitral have no need for Urdu. Nevertheless,
Urdu retains the prestige of being the symbol of national unity
and the badge of literacy and education for the different language
groups in Chitral.
4.7 English
In Chitral, English is not spoken by anyone as a mother

tongue. It is, however, an international language with great
prestige. Some private schools use English as the medium of
instruction, and in the government schools, it is an important
language of higher education. Because it is an unofficial
language of many government functions, knowledge of English
is useful for getting a civil service job. Some English is also
useful for anyone who wishes to deal with foreign tourists who
visit Chitral. For these reasons, some people in Chitral have a
strong desire to learn English and to have their children educated
in an English-medium school (Munnings 1990:23).
4.8 Arabic
In Chitral, Arabic is not spoken by anyone as a mother

tongue. However, it has great prestige as a religious language for
Muslims. Many people gain some degree of proficiency in
Arabic for studying religious books.
4.9 Languages of refugees
There are a number of languages discussed in this volume

which have traditionally been spoken in Afghanistan; due to the
war there, substantial numbers from those language
communities, if not virtually all, have moved into Pakistan. The
future of these language groups will be drastically altered if these
refugees settle permanently in Pakistan. Three of these
languages, Sawi, Munji, and Kamviri, are discussed more fully in
other chapters. The Gawar-bati speaking community, which has
been present historically in a few villages in both Pakistan and
Afghanistan, has also been significantly impacted. These changes

are the most recent examples in the long history of such people
movements in South and Central Asia. It remains to be seen what
the long term effects will be on the sociolinguistic environment
of Chitral and on the linguistic map of Pakistan.
5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE

This study is a snapshot of the sociolinguistic environment

of Chitral at one point in time. The view has been a limited one:
limited by an outsider’s viewpoint, limited by time, and limited
in scope. There are many factors at work, some affecting the
maintenance of languages, others causing language shift. There
are increasing language choices available to the people of
Chitral. Most of the people are proud of their particular language
and desire that it be maintained as part of their ethnolinguistic
identity. Along with such interests in protecting their unique
cultures, many language group spokesmen expressed a desire for
economic and educational development in Chitral. There is a low
literacy rate within Chitral and the education system is not
equipped to adequately handle education in such a multilingual
environment. Munnings (1990:42) lists some key factors
identified by the people of Chitral which are important for the
development of the region:
1. The return of the Afghan refugees to Afghanistan.
2. The completion of the Lowari Tunnel.
3. Improvement of the local economy (in agriculture and in
small industry).
4. Improvement of transportation and health services.
5. Reform of the educational system to promote basic
literacy (in Khowar and Urdu) and the acquisition of
occupational and technical skills that will benefit the
local economy.
In his Welcome Address to the guests at the Second

International Hindu Kush Cultural Conference, Israr-ud-Din
(1990b) spoke of these issues of development and cultural
preservation and gave a clear explanation of the motivations
which underlie this research. It is fitting to end with his words:
This entry of Chitral into the larger cultural
arenas of the nation and of the world is inextricably
related to the second aspect of our cultural and
developmental dilemma. With rapid change comes
dislocation and discontinuity. We are in a period in
which our various cultures, in which we take pride for
their ancient roots and their unique customs and
institutionalized values, are under tremendous
pressure. We see around us the beginnings of cultural
loss and deterioration, and the prospect of their
eventual extinction. . . . For these reasons, every group
is rightly concerned about maintaining the continuity
of those aspects of its cultural heritage which are
deemed essential to maintaining its distinctive identity.
At this particular historical juncture, we in the northern
mountains of Pakistan find ourselves facing the
problem of how to preserve the best elements of our
traditional cultures while adopting selectively the
beneficial elements of the new.
This is not to say that we want to remain in a
cultural vacuum or to preserve a past status quo
forever. This is neither a healthy nor a possible goal.
Cultural change is inevitable, but we hope and believe
that with thoughtful and enlightened leadership among
our scholars and educationists, the progress of cultural
change can be shaped and guided to produce a positive
and healthy synthesis of the old and the new.
Further research into the languages of Chitral is in keeping
with the proposed resolutions of the Second International Hindu
Kush Cultural Conference (19-23rd September, 1990), which
called for “the protection of living cultures and cultural traditions
in the diverse societies of the Hindu Kush.”
25
CHAPTER 2
KHOWAR
This chapter discusses Khowar, the predominant language

of the Chitral District and the Chitrali people. The primary
purpose of this portion of the study was to describe the
sociolinguistic environment of the language of wider
communication which is influencing, to a large measure, the
other language communities in Chitral. Aspects of language
variation, multilingual proficiency, language vitality, language
use, and language attitudes are described.
Information for this study was collected during the summers
of 1989 and 1990. Word lists were collected from: Kesu, near
Drosh; Garam Chishma, in the Lutkuh Valley; Pargam, near
Harchin in the Laspur Valley; Odir, near Rain in the Torkhow
Valley; Chatorkhand, in the Ishkhoman Valley; and from Ushu,
near Kalam in the northern Swat Valley. Questionnaires and
interviews were conducted with forty-two Khowar speakers from
these aforementioned villages and elsewhere throughout Chitral
District, Yasin Valley, Ishkhoman Valley, Gilgit, and Peshawar.
Supplemental information from interviews with speakers of the
other languages in Chitral District concerning Khowar’s
influence on these languages is addressed more thoroughly in the
respective chapters of this volume.
2. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
Khowar is the predominant language of Chitral District in

northwestern Pakistan. (See map 2.) It is spoken as far west as
Garam Chishma in the Lutkuh Valley. To the north, Khowar is
the language of the Torkhow, Mulkhow, Laspur, and Yarkhun
Valleys. South of Shandur Pass, Khowar is spoken on the west
side of the Hindu Raj Range down to Arandu (see map 4),
although it is a minority language in most of the villages south of

Mirkhani. Between Mirkhani and Chitral town, Khowar meets
the Kalasha language along the west side of the Chitral River.
East of Chitral, in Gilgit District, Khowar crosses over

Shandur Pass into the Ghizr Valley as far as Gupis. (See map 2.)
Schomberg (1935:68) reported that in the 1930s Khowar was
spoken in the villages of Yasin and Sandhi in the Yasin Valley.
According to information gathered by a colleague, Backstrom,
the majority of the people in Thaus (see Backstrom and Radloff
1992:map 2) are Khowar speakers; Khowar speakers also live in
other villages in the central and northern Yasin Valley. In the
Ishkoman Valley, the respondents reported, Khowar is the
predominant language in Shonast, Phakor, Dain, Chatorkhand,
Mayon, and Hatoon, and a minority language elsewhere. There
are Khowar speakers in some of the villages in the Punial area
west of Gilgit, and in Gilgit itself.
In Swat District, there are small communities of Khowar

speakers in the northern Swat Valley, namely, at Ushu and
Mathiltan.1 There are ethnic Kho who no longer speak Khowar in
other locations in Swat (S. Decker 1992). Buddruss (1988:14)
mentions a report by a Soviet scholar that there are Khowar
speakers in the Gorno-Badakhshan region in the former Soviet
Union. There are also permanent communities of Khowar
speakers in Peshawar and Rawalpindi.
3. HISTORY OF STUDY
The first studies of Khowar by Europeans were short

vocabularies and grammatical notes by Leitner (cited in
Endresen and Kristiansen 1981) and Biddulph (1880). In 1895
Captain D. J. T. O’Brien wrote an introductory book entitled
Grammar and Vocabulary of the Khowar Dialect (Chitrali).
Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India included material collected
by Colonel B. E. M. Gurdon who lived in Chitral from 1895 to
1902. A few other Europeans collected Khowar songs and
1
Stahl (1988:16) also lists Bishin Mul and Shon.
Chapter 2 Khowar 27
ethnographic information; however, apparently no one went to

Chitral for the express purpose of studying the Kho or their
language. When Morgenstierne visited Kabul, Afghanistan, in
1924, he collected a few songs and texts in Khowar from a
Chitrali servant. In 1929 he collected more texts and vocabulary,
but, according to Endresen and Kristiansen (1981:216), he never
focused his full attention on Khowar. Morgenstierne obtained
some information from D. L. R. Lorimer, who, between 1915
and 1924, collected a large volume of material on Khowar from
Yasin and Chitral town. Unfortunately, most of Lorimer’s
material has never been published and lies in the University of
London’s School of Oriental and African Studies library stacks.
Since Morgenstierne’s death in 1978, Endresen and Kristiansen
have further analyzed some material collected by Morgenstierne.
In 1981 Mohammad Ismail Sloan published a Khowar-English
dictionary. Recent studies of the language have been done
separately by Bashir (cited in Masica 1991) and Munnings.
One interesting aspect of Khowar studies has been the

involvement of South Asians and, later, Chitralis themselves as
the researchers of Khowar. Gurdon’s information from 1895,
was revised for the Linguistic Survey of India (LSI VIII.2) by
Khan Sahib Abdul Hakim Khan, a native assistant political
agent, who was very knowledgeable about Khowar, as well as
many other languages of northwestern India (present-day
northern Pakistan). Morgenstierne (cited in Endresen and
Kristiansen 1981:216) maintained correspondence with certain
influential Khowar speakers who began to take up the torch of
Khowar research and language development. Two of them,
Prince Hisam-ul-Mulk and Wazir Ali Shah, wrote extensive
collections of Khowar folklore. Morgenstierne and Wazir Ali
Shah collaborated on a publication of Khowar songs in 1959.
Sometime in the 1950s Prince Samsam-ul-Mulk wrote a
grammar of Khowar and a course book for primary classes.
Although the precise date is unclear, it is certain that by the late
1950s an alphabet had been adapted for Khowar based on Arabic
and Urdu writing systems. Khowar speakers were responsible for
this development. Prof. Israr-ud-Din, a Chitrali, has written
several studies on the history of Chitral (1979) and the cultures
of Chitral (1969). Today there is a small but growing number of

local writers.
4. HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE
4.1 Name of the people and language
The language is usually called Khowar (sometimes spelled

Kohwar) by the people who speak it as their first language. The
people and language are also commonly referred to as Chitrali
by Khowar speakers as well as others. Leitner (LSI VIII.2:112)
called the language Arniya, which is the name given to Khowar
speakers by the Shina-speaking people. Pashtoons call the people
and language Kashgari (sometimes spelled Qashqari). The
Kalasha call Khowar speakers Patu. In Swat, Khowar speakers
call themselves and their language Kashgari or Chitrali. A
number of different ethnic groups speak Khowar. Khowar means
“language of the Kho people,” but the Kho are not the only
people who speak it as their mother tongue; for example, many
Khowar speakers in southern Chitral are commonly believed to
be ethnically Kalasha. (See also Israr-ud-Din 1990:28.)
The words Kho and Khowar are spoken with an initial
aspirated velar stop [kh]. In South Asia the kh sequence is often
used as a grapheme to represent the velar fricative [x]. In
Khowar /xowar/ means “the poor one” or “the inferior one”
(Munnings 1990:3). Therefore, the pronunciation /xowar/ should
be avoided. This study will use Khowar to refer to the language
and Chitrali to refer to the people who speak Khowar.
4.2 History
Khowar is believed to have been spoken in Chitral for a

very long time. It is generally accepted that Khowar spread
throughout Chitral from the northern part of the region,
specifically from the Torkhow Valley. Most researchers believe
that the original Khowar speakers came to Chitral as part of the
Aryan invasion into South Asia. Morgenstierne (1932:47) says
Chapter 2 Khowar 29
that the original home of the Kho was northern Chitral in the
valleys around Mastuj, although their settlements in the Ghizr
Valley are also ancient (Morgenstierne 1938:442). He suggests
that at some point some of the Kho crossed Baroghil Pass and
occupied part of the Wakhan Valley, in what is now Afghanistan.
Israr-ud-Din (1990:10) notes that long ago Chitralis could cross
to the Wakhan Valley by mountain passes from the Mulkhow
and Torkhow Valleys. According to Kho and Kalasha traditions,
historically, the Kho did not extend south of Reshun; in the south
the Kalasha were dominant. The Kalasha language has since
receded into a few small valleys south of Chitral town, and
Khowar has extended south of Drosh. This displacement of
Kalasha may have begun in the early 14th century. (See Chapter
5, §4.2.)
The people of the Yasin and Ghizr Valleys and the Punial
area frequently had Kho rulers who came from Chitral. E. O.
Lorimer (1939:19) relates that the Chitrali Khushwaqt ruling
family conquered these areas in the early 1700s. According to
Schomberg (1935:172) and respondents interviewed in this
study, Khowar speakers have been moving eastward into the
Gilgit District for several centuries.
Chitrali interviewees living in Swat said that their ancestors

had been sent as a gift to the ruler of Kalam from the Mehtar of
Chitral because they were good water mill builders. Another
story related in Swat is that the ruler of Kalam had a
confederation with the rulers of the Chitral, Yasin, and Tangir
Valleys against the Wali of Swat, and their forefathers came as
part of the arrangement to cooperatively fight against any
aggressor. Barth (1985:102) relates that whenever a ruler of
Chitral was exiled, he would take refuge in Kalam. From this
evidence we see that there has been a historical relationship
between the peoples of Chitral and the northern Swat Valley.
5. PRESENT SOCIAL FACTORS
5.1 Agriculture and economics
Most of Chitral is dry and mountainous. Crops cannot be

grown without irrigation in this mountainous region. Southern
Chitral is more fertile and developed than northern Chitral,
which is dry and barren. Those who live in unirrigatable places
depend on livestock for their livelihood.
While some Chitralis are employed as shopkeepers and
artisans, I observed that outsiders — Pashtoons in Drosh, Persian
speakers in Garam Chishma, and both groups in Chitral town —
are taking a major portion of the bazaar business.2
Munnings (1990:17) points out that in the past Pashtoon
immigrants tended to learn Khowar in order to live peacefully in
Chitral, but recent Pashto-speaking Afghan refugees who have
begun to compete in business are less willing to accommodate
themselves to the local situation.
5.2 Religion and politics
Approximately sixty-five percent of Chitralis belong to the

Sunni sect of Islam; the other thirty-five percent are Ismaili
Muslims. The Ismailis live mostly in the northern valleys.
In 1969 Chitral became a district of the Northwest Frontier
Province of Pakistan; district headquarters are in Chitral town.
There is a special branch of the Pakistan Army called the Chitral
Scouts, made up predominantly of Chitrali men. The deputy
commissioner, the superintendent of police, the commander of
2
One man in Drosh explained that the Chitralis have many social
commitments to maintain, such as extending credit and throwing large wedding
parties, that deplete the capital they could otherwise use to expand their
business. In contrast, Pashtoon immigrants can live very simply. They have few
local social commitments and few, if any, family members nearby to spend
money on. Pashtoon businessmen are also more likely to have good business
contacts down-country, enabling them to get better wholesale prices. The
Pashtoons are thus able to develop and enlarge their businesses while Chitrali
businesses stagnate.
Chapter 2 Khowar 31
the Chitral Scouts, and the officer in charge of the regular army
unit stationed in the area are all non-Chitralis as a matter of
policy. Chitrali politicians are active in all levels of the national
government.
5.3 Population distribution
There are no accurate estimations of the number of Khowar

speakers. The 1983 Chitral District Council census, as well as the
Chitral District Council’s 1987 rearrangement for local body
elections, lists a population of 215,000 people in Chitral. This
figure includes speakers of all languages, but excludes Afghan
refugees. Israr-ud-Din (cited in Munnings 1990:5), professor of
geography at the University of Peshawar, estimated the district’s
population at 200,000 in 1984; he said that 90 percent of the
residents are Khowar speakers. As reported in the other chapters,
there are 36,500 to 43,700 speakers of languages other than
Khowar in Chitral. This would mean that there are 173,000 to
200,000 first-language speakers of Khowar in Chitral.
To estimate the number of Khowar speakers in the Gilgit
District, the populations of villages respondents reported to be
ninety percent or more Khowar-speaking were totalled, using
statistics from the 1981 District Census Report of Gilgit. The
populations of Hatoon, Chatorkhand, Dain, Phakor, Shonast, and
Thaus total 8600. There are many more Khowar speakers in
other villages in the Gilgit District, so the estimate is rounded to
10,000.
The Wali of Swat (cited in Barth 1985:102) states that about
400 households in the Kalam area speak Khowar. Using an
estimate of seven members per household (Israr-ud-Din
1990:28), this is 2800 Khowar speakers. The respondents in Swat
estimated that there are 700 to more than 1000 Khowar speakers
in Ushu and Mathiltan.
Chitralis interviewed in Peshawar estimated that more than
400 families and possibly as many as 5000 individuals in
Peshawar are Khowar speakers; there are as many in Rawalpindi
also. According to Buddruss (1988:14-15), there may be a group
of Khowar speakers in the former Soviet Union; we do not know
what size group.3 Chart 1 lists the above estimates. A practical

estimate for the total population of Khowar speakers is 200,000.
Chart 1
Population Estimates
Chitral District 173,000 to 200,000
Gilgit District 8,600 to 10,000
Northern Swat Valley 700 to 2,800
Peshawar and Rawalpindi 5,700 to 10,000
TOTAL 188,000 to 222,800
5.4 Availability of education
There are elementary schools in most Khowar-speaking

villages in Chitral. There are high schools in many larger
villages. There are colleges at Buni, Chitral town, and Drosh.
Some Chitrali men and a few women pursue higher education at
the University of Peshawar and other Pakistani universities. A
1983 survey by the Chitral District Council gives the following
list (Chart 2) of schools for all of Chitral, regardless of the
dominant language of the community:
3
Meillet and Cohen (1952:22) said that there were 6956 speakers of
Khowar in India; the geographic area they were referring to is present-day
Pakistan. Given the number of speakers there are today, this estimate must be
incorrect.
Chapter 2 Khowar 33
Chart 2
Number of Schools in Chitral District
Girls primary schools 55

" middle " 1
" high " 3
Boys primary schools 132

" middle " 20
" high " 19
Most of the respondents in southern Chitral and in the

Khowar-speaking areas outside of Chitral reported that all or
most boys in their villages go to school. Respondents in northern
Chitral reported that only a few boys in their villages are being
educated. Respondents from the Ishkoman Valley and southern
Chitral reported that most of the girls in their villages are being
educated. Participants from the other Khowar-speaking areas in
Swat and Gilgit District reported that few or none of the girls in
their villages attend school. The 1983 Chitral District Council’s
survey in Chitral gives the following attendance (Chart 3) for all
schools, regardless of the students’ mother-tongue:
Chart 3
Attendance Figures for Schools in Chitral District
Primary Middle High College Total
Males 14,951 7,268 4,003 1,820 28,042
Females 3,337 554 231 87 4,209
The 1983 survey also lists 44,651 males and 55,730 females
as being illiterate. I assume this refers to school age children who
are not attending school.
Munnings (1990:39) estimates that one percent of Chitrali
women and fifteen percent to twenty percent of Chitrali men are
literate. Of the 42 respondents involved in this study, 12 had
post-matriculation education. Another 12 had less than two years

of education.
5.5 Development organizations
Numerous development projects have been accomplished

throughout the district by the government and by aid from
foreign governments. These projects include roads,
electrification, bridges, and irrigation projects. The Agha Khan
Rural Support Program (AKRSP) is active in many areas with
similar projects.
One of the major development projects that has concerned
the people of Chitral is referred to as the Lowari Tunnel. Chitral
is connected to the rest of Pakistan by a dirt road going over
Lowari Pass. This pass is closed by snow five months a year. A
tunnel under the pass was begun in the early 1970s, but progress
has been delayed for technical and financial reasons for many
years. There is an airport in Chitral town, but flights are irregular
at best, and essentially nonexistent in the winter; planes cannot
be depended on to transport supplies to the people of Chitral in
the winter. Life in Chitral is difficult through the winter, and
particularly toward spring, as supplies become depleted before
the pass opens again. During the winter of 1989-1990 supplies
were brought by road from Peshawar to Chagha Sarai,
Afghanistan and then up the Kunar Valley to Chitral.
6. LINGUISTIC AFFILIATION
Khowar is an Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan

(Indic) language of the Dardic, Chitral sub-group (Morgenstierne
1961:138-139; Emeneau 1966; Strand 1973:302; Voegelin and
Voegelin 1965:284-294; Ruhlen 1987:325). Morgenstierne
(1947:6-8) states that although Khowar has been strongly
influenced by the Iranian languages to the west, its general
structure is purely Indo-Aryan. He bases his classification on
Khowar’s preservation of several archaic phonological features
and of the old Indo-Aryan case system. The only other Dardic
Chapter 2 Khowar 35
language that Khowar is closely related to is Kalasha. They share

certain unique grammatical features, but there is not much lexical
similarity.
Although Kalasha is considered to be in the same subgroup

as Khowar, there is no doubt that the two languages are separate
and mutually unintelligible.
7. REPORTED LINGUISTIC VARIATION OF KHOWAR
Several researchers have observed that there is little or no

variation to the language (E. O. Lorimer 1939; Morgenstierne
1932; Munnings 1990). A recent article by Inayatullah Faizi
(1989), a Khowar speaker, compares the Khowar spoken in six
different areas: Chitral town and Drosh (southern Chitral); the
Torkhow and Mulkhow Valleys (northwestern Chitral); Biyar
which includes the Yarkhun Valley (northeastern Chitral), the
Lutkuh and Arkari Valleys (west-central Chitral); the Laspur
area (east-central Chitral); and the Ghizr, Yasin, and Ishkoman
Valleys (western Gilgit District). (See map 2.) He concludes that
there is only slight variation between these areas, with the most
divergence in the Lutkuh Valley and Gilgit District.
Participants interviewed in this study had definite opinions

about where the purest and least pure Khowar is spoken. Nearly
all of the respondents in Chitral said that the Khowar spoken in
the Torkhow Valley is the purest; most also mentioned the
Mulkhow Valley. Participants from outside of Chitral simply
said that the best Khowar is spoken in Chitral. As for the least
pure Khowar spoken in Chitral, some respondents said the
speech of the Lutkuh Valley; others said southern Chitral. The
people of Pargam told me that the speech of Garam Chishma is
somewhat different from theirs and is a little difficult to
understand. They all said that the reason these people speak
impure Khowar is that they mix it with different languages.
Chitral town is central in the travel patterns of Chitral, but the
Khowar spoken there is also said to be mixed with Urdu and
other languages. The Khowar spoken in the Laspur and Lutkuh
Valleys is sometimes identified as unusual. This is possibly due
to influence from other languages; Yidgha was formerly spoken
in some villages in the Lutkuh Valley, and Phalura may have

been spoken in the Laspur Valley. The respondents from the
Ishkoman Valley said that various locations in the Gilgit area,
and the Ishkoman and Yasin Valleys speak impure Khowar
because the people mix it with neighboring languages.
Most participants said that they had no difficulty

understanding the speech of Khowar speakers from other areas,
although the Chitrali respondents from Swat said they rarely
meet Khowar speakers from outside of their area.
Munnings (personal communication) reports that people

from northern Chitral generally regard their brand of Khowar as
more original and “correct”. Some northern Chitralis refer to the
people of southern Chitral as ethnically Kalasha, or say that their
Khowar has been negatively influenced by Kalasha, Pashto, and
Urdu. The people of southern Chitral seem to recognize that the
original home of Khowar is in the Mulkhow and Torkhow
Valleys, but are not prepared to admit that their own brand of
Khowar is inferior. They regard people from northern Chitral as
a bit rustic, quaint, or unsophisticated.
Morgenstierne (1932:50) explains the homogeneity of the

language by the fact that, historically, peasants were transferred
from one part of the district to another by members of the ruling
class. Fussman (1972:23) explains the homogeneity by relating
that the sons of noble Kho families were always raised in a
family other than their own. Munnings (1990:11) believes that, in
addition to these factors, the practice of obtaining brides from
distant villages helps account for Khowar’s minimal dialectal
variation.
8. RELATIONSHIP BY LEXICAL SIMILARITY
The Khowar word lists were collected from seven locations.

After checking the written word lists with Munnings’ (1987) and
Sloan’s (1981) dictionaries, some words were eliminated as
poorly elicited. Following is a list of the actual number of words
compared from each location: Chatorkhand 203, the Swat Valley
Chapter 2 Khowar 37
195, Pargam 168, Odir 203, Garam Chishma 203, and Kesu 202.
Each word list was compared with all the others, pair by pair, in
order to determine the extent to which the corresponding lexical
items are similar. In this procedure no attempt is made to identify
true cognates based on consistent sound correspondences.
Rather, the items are compared only for obvious phonetic
similarity.4 A lexical similarity comparison is represented in
chart 4, with the percentage of words considered similar between
each of the locations.
Chart 4
Lexical Similarity Percentages
Chatorkhand (Ishkoman Valley)

86 Ushu (Swat Valley)
90 87 Pargam Nisar (Laspur Valley)
94 91 93 Odir (Torkhow Valley)
91 88 93 98 Garam Chishma
91 89 94 98 97 Kesu
The motivation behind a count based on phonetic similarity

is that such comparisons aim to indicate how well speakers from
different locations might understand each other. These lexical
similarity percentages show that there is a small amount of
variation among the different locations. This information,
considered with other information concerning the uniformity of
grammatical forms and respondent opinion, indicates that
speakers from different areas have little difficulty understanding
one another. Swat Khowar shows the greatest difference from the
other locations.
4
The complete Khowar word lists are included in appendix B. See
appendix A for a more thorough description of the word list comparison
method.
9. INTERACTION WITH AND USE OF NEIGHBORING

LANGUAGES
In Chitral District, Khowar is the regional lingua franca, but

there are several other languages in the region as well: Dameli,
Eastern Kativiri, Shekhani, Gawar-bati, Kalasha, Phalura, Gujari,
Yidgha, and Wakhi. Several major languages that are spoken
outside of Chitral influence the sociolinguistic situation of
Khowar in Chitral. South of Chitral, Pashto is the lingua franca,
and today many Pashto speakers are moving into southern
Chitral. Urdu, as the national language of Pakistan, has an
influence in Chitral through education. Chitral is a popular
tourist spot, and due to tourism, English has become influential.
Persian was the official language of Chitral until 1953; Persian
has had some linguistic effect on Khowar.
The Chitrali participants in the Gilgit District reported
contact with Shina, Burushaski, and Wakhi speakers. The
Chitrali respondents in Swat reported frequent contact with
Kalami speakers. Khowar-speaking participants in Peshawar
reported daily contact with Pashto, Punjabi, and Hindko
speakers.
Munnings (1990:17) reports that Pashto-speaking Afghan
refugees who have moved into southern Chitral in the last decade
differ from Pashtoons who have lived in Chitral for several
decades. Previously, when Pashto speakers moved into Chitral,
they learned Khowar to fit into the society; the new immigrants
and refugees, however, do not learn Khowar, which requires
some Chitralis to learn Pashto. Typically, speakers of minority
languages in Chitral have learned Khowar for use in the bazaars
of Drosh and Chitral town.
Some neighboring groups speak Khowar as their second
language. This is true of the Phalura, Yidgha, and Kalasha
communities; some degree of second language proficiency in
Khowar is also occasionally found in parts of the Shekhani,
Dameli, Gawar-bati, Wakhi, Kalami, Burushaski, and Shina
communities. Respondents from Phalura-speaking Ghos and
Yidgha-speaking Zhitor reported that some men in their villages
Chapter 2 Khowar 39
marry Khowar women so that their children will be raised as

Khowar speakers.
10. SECOND LANGUAGE USE PATTERNS
People seem to be proud of their ability to speak other

languages, but to have only a pragmatic use for those languages.
There was no evidence that Khowar speakers are interested in
completely switching to another language.
More than half of the respondents reported that they would

allow their children to marry a person from any other language
group; however, quite a few said that they want their children to
marry a Khowar speaker. Many said that language preservation
is an important reason for their decision. In mixed marriages,
generally the wife is expected to learn the language of the
husband, but in some situations the marriage is arranged to
encourage the use of Khowar in the new family.
The majority of teachers in the schools in Chitral are

Khowar-speaking Chitralis. It was reported that teachers in the
lower levels do not have very good second language ability in
Urdu. Also, the students have had very little exposure to Urdu
when they first enter school. Therefore, for ease in
communication, it can be expected that teachers’ explanations in
the lower levels are often in Khowar. This must be helpful to
Khowar-speaking students, enabling them to progress faster and
further than students from other minority languages with less or
no proficiency in Khowar. In the upper levels, Urdu is used as
the medium of instruction. Nearly all of the Chitral respondents
said that they believe their children will need to be able to speak
Urdu and English when they become adults.
The Khowar speakers in the Ishkoman Valley and Gilgit

area have varying degrees of contact with Shina, Burushaski, and
Wakhi speakers. Some of the Chitrali villages in the Ishkoman
Valley are predominantly Khowar-speaking, other villages are
more mixed. Several of the Chitrali respondents from the
Ishkoman Valley reported that they did not learn Shina until they
became adults; others learned Shina from classmates in school.

The Chitrali participants said that they can do most of their
shopping with Khowar-speaking shopkeepers, except in Gilgit,
where they sometimes use Shina, Pashto, or Urdu.
The Chitralis in Swat live amongst Kalami speakers. The

respondents there reported that even in their childhood they were
able to speak Kalami with their neighbors. There is a bazaar in
Mathiltan. Most of the shopkeepers are reported to be Khowar
speakers. The largest bazaar town in the area is the village of
Kalam, which has Kalami- and Pashto-speaking shopkeepers. In
different social settings the Chitralis may use Pashto, Kalami, or
Khowar, depending on who is present. One man said that only
some Kalami people learn to speak Khowar. Several respondents
reported that more Chitrali men marry Kalami-speaking women
than Chitrali women, but these women learn Khowar.
The Chitralis in Peshawar reported that they use Pashto or

Urdu daily with the different people they meet. One of the men
said that Pashto and Urdu are used frequently by all family
members in his home. However, many of the Chitralis work in
the same general area in Peshawar and they use Khowar amongst
themselves.
11. SECOND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
Some segments of the Khowar community have become

proficient in other languages; no one language is most common,
with the possible exception of Urdu. As more men are educated,
there will be a higher standard of Urdu ability throughout the
community. Pashto may become more common as the Chitralis
travel outside of their district to other areas where Pashto is the
lingua franca. Because Urdu and Pashto are both important to
know, it is unlikely that Chitralis will find it advantageous to
switch to exclusive use of only one of these languages.
In the rural areas of Chitral District some men learn a little

Urdu, Pashto, or Persian. In the Drosh area there is more pressure
to learn Pashto. Some Chitralis learn the minority language
Chapter 2 Khowar 41
spoken in surrounding communities to facilitate social and

business interactions. In the larger towns, educated men
frequently have the ability to speak some Urdu and English.
Khowar-speaking participants from the Swat villages reported
that Kalami is the second language in which they have the best
proficiency. Several of the respondents in the Ishkoman Valley
reported that Shina is their best second language, while others
felt that they could speak Urdu best.
Most of the participants reported that their women do not

speak a second language, with the exception of Swat women,
who are reported to have some ability in Kalami. Several
respondents in the Gilgit District reported that their women have
some proficiency in Urdu.
Most of the Chitral respondents reported that their children

can speak some Urdu. The Drosh participants said that their
children can also speak some Pashto and Persian. Those
interviewed from central Chitral mentioned English as another
language in which their children have some ability. The fact that
the fathers mentioned these languages may indicate their
aspirations rather than actual fact. Khowar speakers from Swat
reported that their children can speak some Kalami and Pashto.
Young people have few opportunities to use Urdu or English, so
it is likely that their ability is minimal.
12. EVIDENCE OF LANGUAGE VITALITY
Khowar is the predominant language of the Chitral District

and the language of a sizable population. A large portion of the
population of its speakers are monolingual in Khowar. The
language is linguistically quite uniform throughout the
community of speakers. It is a written language with a growing
body of literature. The people are very proud of their language.
There are some radio and television broadcasts in Khowar from
Peshawar. These facts are evidence of a very vital language
community.
Even the smaller Khowar-speaking communities outside of

Chitral District evidence that the language has vitality for those
people. Khowar speakers from Swat and the Gilgit District said
that Khowar will continue to be the language their children use
most when they become adults. One Chitrali man in Swat said,
“We are strict to speak only Chitrali [Khowar] in our homes.”
Munnings (personal communication) reports that some Chitralis
living near Gilgit have been quite active with writing and
promoting written Khowar, possibly as a measure of resistance to
immersion in the Shina-speaking community. However, the
Khowar-speaking communities in Peshawar and Rawalpindi may
have somewhat less vitality due to their relatively small numbers
in the midst of much larger communities of other-language
speakers. A Chitrali in Peshawar said that his children are able to
speak Khowar but rarely do.
13. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Khowar is one of the major languages of northern Pakistan;

it is the lingua franca of Chitral District. For a language spoken
throughout such a large area, it appears to have a great degree of
uniformity. The political and cultural environment in Chitral has
been fairly stable for many centuries because of its geographic
isolation. The Chitrali people are proud of their history and
language. Khowar language use is active. A small but growing
group of men are active in developing Khowar as a written
language and in establishing a literary tradition. Conferences
have been held to encourage research into Chitrali culture and to
provide a forum for the promotion of the language.
Although some members of the Khowar-speaking

community have some degree of second language proficiency in
at least one other language, there appear to be many monolingual
people, mainly in rural areas. In Chitral District, men with some
amount of education most commonly reported Urdu as their
second language. In the areas outside of Chitral District there is
some second language proficiency in the languages of their
neighbors: Shina in Gilgit District, Kalami in Swat District, and
Pashto in Peshawar.
43
CHAPTER 3
YIDGHA
This chapter examines some aspects of the sociolinguistic

environment of the Yidgha-speaking community in western
Chitral. Information regarding the location and demographics of
the speakers of Yidgha is presented as a foundation for
understanding the sociolinguistic data. The primary purpose of
this chapter is to examine evidence of the language vitality of
Yidgha. Data for this study were gathered during several brief
research trips to the Lutkuh Valley during the summers of 1989
and 1990. A word list was collected and questionnaires and
interviews were conducted with seven respondents from Zhitor,
Gufti, Berzin, and Rui all in the Lutkuh Valley. Data collected
from two respondents on the related Munji language of
Afghanistan are also included for comparison with Yidgha.
The people who speak Yidgha live in the Lutkuh Valley of

western Chitral. The 12 to 18 Yidgha villages are located in the
Lutkuh Tehsil between Garam Chishma and Dorah Pass (see
map 3) at an elevation of from 2400 to 2500 meters (7600 to
7900 feet). Garam Chishma is 45 kilometers (28 miles) by road
northwest of Chitral town. The area is a very rugged region of
the Hindu Kush Mountains. The problem with identifying the
number of villages where the language is spoken is that different
sources give different names for some villages, and some sources
list as separate entities villages considered to be parts of larger
villages. Figure 1 is a list of village names, from east to west, and
their sources.
Figure 1
Comparative Listings of Yidgha Villages
Respondents’ Chitral District Sultan-Ul-
reports Council (1987) Arifin (1988) Morgenstierne (1938)
Burbunu Burbono Burbunu Burbunu
Postaki Postaky
Zhitor Zhitor Zhetor Zhitr
Zitorsaik Zhetorsahik
Waht Wakht Woht Wart
Koch Koch
Khatekh
Rui Rui Rui
Khoghik Kohock Lohok
Gestami Gistini
Gulugh Gulyu
Gufti Gofti Gufty Gurtio/Gufti
Parabek Parabeg Parabeg Parabek
Berzin Birzine Berzen Birzin
Ughuti Aughti Aughuty Avghato
Gohik Gohiek Gohek Goik
Gobar Gobore Imirdino/Imurjin1
The area of continuous habitation from easternmost

Burbunu to Gobar in the west is not more than 12 miles long.
Each village, except for Gobar, is inhabited only by Yidgha
speakers. According to Morgenstierne’s (1938) respondents, in
1929 more Yidgha people lived farther east than the village of
Burbunu, at Drushp, Chirwul, and Murdan but they spoke
Khowar as their mother tongue.
3. HISTORY OF STUDY
The first publication of linguistic information on Yidgha
was a list of words and a few phrases by Biddulph in Tribes of
the Hindoo Koosh (1880). Several other linguists, namely
Tomaschek, Van den Gheyn, and Geiger (cited in Grjunberg
1972), used Biddulph’s material in articles concerned with the
classification of Yidgha and the related Munji language. Grierson
(LSI X) included Biddulph’s material and added a bit more
information in his Linguistic Survey of India. Morgenstierne
1
Imirdino or Imurjin refer to the same village as Gobar.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 45
(1938) appears to have been the first linguist to actually collect

material in the Yidgha area in 1929. In 1988 Mohammad Sultan-
Ul-Arifin, a Chitrali, wrote a thesis on the Yidgha language and
culture.
Morgenstierne (1930) reported that the name of a member

of the tribe is [IdFG], plural [IdGeú]. He said this is also the name
of the tribe and the valley. Phonetically, [IdFG], or [yŒ¼dg], points
to an ancient form [Indug], which derives from (h)induka.
Morgenstierne suggests that this name was first given by the
Munji, of the Munjan Valley in Afghanistan, to fellow tribesmen
who settled on the Indian side of the Hindu Kush Mountains. The
language is called Lutkuhwar by Khowar speakers, and
sometimes by the Yidgha also. One of the respondents involved
in this present study said that they sometimes call themselves
Lutkowi. Sultan-Ul-Arifin (1988) reports the name Derwesh for
the tribe; however, none of the participants in this study had
heard of this name. For the purposes of this study Yidgha will be
used for both the people and language.
4.2 History
Not much is known about the history of the Yidgha people

or language. It is unclear if the language came to the Lutkuh
Valley with a group of people or if the people of the Lutkuh
Valley adopted the language. Some of both may be true.
Biddulph (1880) was the first to describe the Yidgha as the same
race as the Munji, who live on the northwest side of the Hindu
Kush Mountains west of Dorah Pass. He reported that the Yidgha
claim to have migrated from the Munjan Valley (see map 3)
seven generations previous to his visit as a result of an invasion
of that district by the rulers of Badakhshan. Morgenstierne
(1938) said that this tradition is probably true, although his
respondents could not confirm it.
Morgenstierne (1938) noted linguistic evidence indicating a

long history of contact between Yidgha and Khowar speakers.
Two of his respondents claimed that their families had originally
come from the Torkhow Valley of Chitral. He said that the
Yidgha are socially divided into clans in the same manner as the
Kho, the speakers of Khowar. Morgenstierne also noted that
although the Lutkuh Valley is in a small, outlying area of Chitral,
Yidgha has influenced Khowar; numerous Khowar words are
Yidgha in origin. He observed that, to a great extent, the Yidgha
have been culturally assimilated into the Kho population. They
never seem to have enjoyed any political independence or to
have produced any powerful chiefs. Their position on the ancient
trade route between Chitral town and Dorah Pass may have
contributed to their subjugation.
Although the history of how Yidgha came to be spoken in
the Lutkuh Valley is unclear, it seems that there may be a
difference between the spread of the language and the
movements of the people. Sultan-Ul-Arifin (1988)2 believes that
during the reign of Mahmud of Ghazni, in the 11th century,
Afghan soldiers moved into the Yumgan area of Afghanistan (the
central area of the Kokcha Valley, see map 3). The presence of
the soldiers may have caused some people from the Munjan
Valley to move from there to the Lutkuh Valley. Grjunberg
(1972) relates a similar Yidgha tradition that the Yidgha moved
to the Lutkuh Valley after people from Badakhshan attacked and
destroyed villages in the Munjan Valley.
Sultan-Ul-Arifin (1988) relates another story describing
how the Yidgha language may have come into the Lutkuh
Valley. He tells of Ismaili religious teachers, one of whom spoke
Munji, coming into the Lutkuh Valley in the 11th century.3 It is
thought that this Munji man’s descendants may have stayed on in
2
Sultan-Ul-Arifin (1988) mentions three books that discuss Yidgha
history, giving the following reference information: Zabiullah Safa, Dr. 1339
A.H. Tarikh-e-Ababiyat Dar Iran. (Persian) Vol. II, 3rd Edition. Murtaza Mirza
Ghulam. 1963. Nai Tarikh Chitral. (Urdu) Peshawar. Gul Nawaz Khan Khaki.
1981. Yidghah.
3
Jettmar (1989) relates two accounts of someone called Taj Moghal who
brought the Ismaili faith to the northern areas of Pakistan. He says that this may
have been about 1300 A.D.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 47
the Lutkuh Valley, perhaps being joined by other Munji speakers

and that the original inhabitants of the valley learned the
language along with the Ismaili teachings. If this story is true,
then Yidgha, which was derived from Munji, has been spoken in
the Lutkuh Valley for more than 900 years.
A couple of respondents in this present study believe that
this story is true. They said that before becoming Yidgha
speakers their ancestors had been Persian-speakers. A man in Rui
said that he was ethnically Kho and that his family, and fourteen
other families in the village, had originally come from the
Torkhow Valley. He said that five generations ago the Mehtar of
Chitral had given their ancestors land in Rui. Now they all speak
Yidgha. These accounts would indicate that the Yidgha language
developed out of Munji and that, over time, it spread to become
the main language of the inhabitants of the western Lutkuh
Valley.
The central part of the Lutkuh Valley around Parabek is

wide and well cultivated. The Yidgha grow a variety of crops,
including wheat, maize, and apricots. There is not much rainfall
in the area, but sufficient water for irrigation is available from
melting snowfields.
The Yidgha are followers of the Ismaili sect of Islam.

Sultan-Ul-Arifin (1988) reports that the Yidgha observe several
festivals and hold beliefs that diverge from orthodox Ismaili
beliefs.
The Lutkuh Valley has been a major route through the

mountains for hundreds of years. There is now a dirt road beside
the river all the way through the valley. Garam Chishma was an
important staging area for Afghan mujahedin caravans supplying
military operations during the recent war in Afghanistan. The
caravans passed through some of the Yidgha villages on their
way to and from Afghanistan.
There are no census figures that count the people by their

language. Over one hundred years ago Biddulph (1880:64)
estimated the Yidgha population at 1000 families. Based on data
collected by Gurdon, who was in Chitral from 1895 to 1902,
Morgenstierne (1938) estimated that the population in 1904 was
not more than 600 to 700 people. He estimated the 1929
population at 200 to 300 Yidgha-speaking households or 800 to
1000 people. He believed that with 30 years of peace the
population could have increased this much from Gurdon’s
numbers. Possibly Biddulph’s estimate was somewhat high.
Figure 2
1987 Chitral District Council Population Figures
Burbunu 134 Gestami —
Postaki 293 Gulugh —
Zhitor 621 Gufti 482
Zitorsaik 94 Parabek 533
Waht 277 Berzin 556
Koch 89 Ughuti 396
Khatekh 230 Gohik 277
Rui — Gobar 1530
Khoghik —
TOTAL (Individuals in all villages) 5512
Figure 2 lists the 1987 Chitral District Council population figures

for most, but not all,4 of the villages. Gobar is a mixed village of
Yidgha, Khowar, and Shekhani speakers. Nevertheless, as many
as 5000 to 6000 speakers of Yidgha may be estimated.5
4
The villages of Rui, Khoghik, Gestami, and Gulugh were identified as
being Yidgha-speaking villages, but the Chitral District Council population
figures were not available for these villages. A respondent estimated 330 people
in Rui. The locations for some of the villages named in the District Council
figures were not confirmed. (See §2.)
5
As is discussed in §10.2, some of the Yidgha were reported to have
married Khowar wives but these villages were not specified as having mixed
populations.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 49
The only information about the schools obtained for this

study was from respondents. They reported boys’ primary
schools in Zhitor, Parabek, and Berzin. There are girls’ primary
schools in Zhitor, Rui, and Gufti. There is a boys’ middle school
in Gufti and a boys’ high school in Garam Chishma. In Zhitor it
was reported that most of the boys and girls attend school;
however, in the other villages it was reported that few of the
children attend school. The teachers at the Zhitor schools are all
mother-tongue Khowar-speakers.
6.1 Linguistic classification
Yidgha is closely related to Munji, which has historically

been spoken in the Munjan and Mamalgha Valleys on the
northwest side of the Hindu Kush Mountains in Afghanistan.
(See §7.) These languages are described by Payne (1987) as
Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, South-East Iranian, Pamir (or
Ghalchah) languages. Morgenstierne (1938) considers Munji and
Yidgha closest to the Sanglechi (also called Zebak) and
Ishkashimi languages, in the Pamir group of Indo-Iranian
languages. He considers Munji and Yidgha to be highly archaic,
and describes ancient forms of Munji and Yidgha words to
support his theory.
6.2 Reported linguistic variation in Yidgha
Morgenstierne (1938) states that there is practically no

dialectal variation within the limited area in which Yidgha is
spoken. He noted a few words that differ between the western
and eastern villages and the tendency of one respondent to
nasalize final vowels; these were the only differences he found.
During word list collection for this study there were no
significant differences noted. The respondents said that there is
no difference from village to village in the way people speak
Yidgha; however, they were able to identify villages where they

think Yidgha is spoken with greater purity. Three respondents
said that the best Yidgha is spoken in Ughuti; one of these
respondents also mentioned Berzin and another included Zhitor.
A fourth respondent said that the best Yidgha is spoken in Rui; a
fifth respondent said Gufti and Berzin.
7. THE RELATED LANGUAGE OF MUNJI
The two Munji respondents interviewed in this study said

that, due to the recent war in Afghanistan, all of the Munji have
left Afghanistan and moved to various places in Chitral. Many
Munji were killed and many of the villages were destroyed. They
said that the people’s intention is to return to their traditional
villages after peace returns to the area. Therefore, the language
will be treated as still being spoken in Afghanistan, though the
current research was conducted with Munji-speaking refugees in
Pakistan.
7.1 Geographic location
The Munji dialects are spoken in Afghanistan in the

Mamalgha (also called Maghnawul or Tagaw) Valley and in the
Munjan Valley south of an area called Kuran, where the Kokcha
River begins. (See map 3.) The Munjan River is the southeastern
source of the Kokcha River. According to Grjunberg (1972), the
Munjan Valley is approximately 60 kilometers (37 miles) long
and fairly wide. About 22 kilometers (13.5 miles) of the valley
were inhabited; there were 13 or 14 settlements or villages in this
area. The lowest settlement, Ghumonda, was situated at an
elevation of 2775 meters (8769 feet) above sea level. The highest
village, Huley, was at more than 3000 meters (9480 feet). In the
Mamalgha Valley there were two or three more Munji villages.
The Munjan Valley is surrounded by mountains of 5000 to 6000
meters (15,800 to 18,960 feet) in elevation, and there are few
passes into the area. At the south, or highest, end of the Munjan
Valley there is a fairly easy pass that gives access to the Prasun
(also called Parun) Valley. At the east, or highest, end of the
Chapter 3 Yidgha 51
Mamalgha Valley there is a pass that gives access to the upper

end of the Sanglech Valley; from here there is access, through
Dorah Pass, into the Lutkuh Valley. At the north, or lowest, end
of the Munjan Valley, where the river enters the Kuran area,
there is a gorge that is so narrow as to be virtually impassable.
Above this gorge the Pajika Pass gives access to the Kokcha and
Anjuman Valleys.
Various sources give different names or spellings for some

of the villages. The Munji names are listed (according to
Grjunberg 1972) with the Persian names in parentheses. In the
Mamalgha Valley, from west to east, are Tagaw (Tagau), Wilf
(Wulf or Peip), and Mamalgha (Maghnawul). In the Munjan
Valley, from north to south, are Ghumonda (Ghamond), Shoron
(Shar-i-Munjan), Dashk (Dasht), Lavowont (Diambi), Vilgva
(Wilu), Ghaz, Spazmina (Sho-i-Pari), Waya (Shar Jangal), Shola
(Miyondi), Yughdak (Ighdak), Panim (Panam or Panom),
Hojakkay (Kala-i-Shah), and Huley (Thili).
7.2 History of study
Shaw (cited in Grjunberg 1972) published the first

information on Munji in 1876. He traveled only part way up the
Kokcha River and did not enter the Munjan Valley. In 1892
Robertson (1896) visited Wilf for one night. In 1924 two Russian
botanists, N. I. Vavilov and D. D. Bukinich (cited in Grjunberg
1972), traveled through the Munjan Valley from the Sanglech
Valley to the Prasun Valley. None of these men collected any
linguistic information. In 1929 Morgenstierne (1938) was given
permission to travel as far as Dorah Pass. He spoke to several
Munji men, from whom he collected a large amount of linguistic
information. His extensive analysis of Munji was published with
his Yidgha analysis in 1938. In 1962 and 1963 a group of West
German ethnographers worked in the Munjan area and collected
a wealth of anthropological data but very little linguistic data
(Snoy 1965). In 1966 Grjunberg (1972) began his studies of
Munji while working with a geological expedition in
Badakhshan. In 1967 he visited most of the villages in the
Munjan Valley during a one-week stay in the area. His research

and analysis of the language appears to be thorough and
extensive.
The information gathered for this study was collected during
the summer of 1990. A word list was collected from a 45-year-
old man from Hojakkay and a teenaged boy from the Munjan
Valley (the name of his village is unknown) who were living as
refugees in the Arghutsh camp a few miles south of Chitral town.
7.3 History of the people
7.3.1 Name of the people and language
Morgenstierne (1930), in a detailed article about the historic

phonological derivation of the name Munji, states that it comes
from the ancient Persian word for meadow. He says that the
Yidgha call the Munjan Valley BreGE yo and the Kati call it
Mrugul. Various scholars have used variations of these language
names: Grjunberg (1972) called it Munjhan, Geiger (cited in
Morgenstierne 1938) called it Munjani, Gauthiot (cited in
Morgenstierne 1938) called it Mindjani, Morgenstierne (1930)
and Fussman (1972) called it Munji. Respondents interviewed for
this present study called the language Munjiwar, but this seems
to be a Khowar version of the name. Munji will be used here for
both the people and language.
7.3.2 History
There is evidence that the political and economic influence

of the Munji in the Hindu Kush region has declined in the last
century. Although little is known of their history, Morgenstierne
(1930, 1938), Grjunberg (1972), and Snoy (1965) have shown
evidence that there was a time when the Munji must have had a
wider influence. The Chinese traveler Huan Tsang (cited in
Morgenstierne 1938) first mentioned the Munji in the 7th century
A.D. Morgenstierne (1938) said that place names to the north of
the Munjan Valley give evidence that the language previously
extended farther north. Grjunberg (1972) listed Munji place
names in the Prasun Valley, interpreting this as evidence of
Chapter 3 Yidgha 53
contact with, not occupation of, the valley. Snoy (1965) notes
that the main trade route of the Munji passed through the Prasun
Valley to the various Nuristani tribes. Before the Nuristani
peoples were converted to Islam (between 1895 and 1900), the
Munjan Valley was a center of trade for the tribes of Nuristan.
Snoy believes that there was a time when the Munji were strong
enough to have raided their Muslim neighbors to the west. After
the Islamic conquest of Nuristan, the Nuristani tribes turned their
trade toward the south, cutting off trade with the Munji.
The Islamic conquest of the area evidently ushered in a

period of war. Some Yidgha traditions related to such battles
were reported by Grjunberg (1972) and Sultan-Ul-Arifin (1988)
in §4.2. There may have been wars between the Munji and the
Nuristani tribes to the south. When Robertson (1896) visited the
Mamalgha Valley in 1892, the Munji were frightened by the
presence of this British officer and his Nuristani guides. The
Munji feared that their Afghan overlords, from Badakhshan,
would punish them for allowing Robertson’s group into their
territory, and they also feared the Nuristani men. Grjunberg
(1972) interprets this as showing that, by the end of the 1800s,
the situation had changed from a time when they had better
relations with their neighbors.
Grjunberg (1972) related that some of the people he met

could remember a time when they enjoyed prosperity.
Morgenstierne (1938), however, reported that the Munjan Valley
was an excessively poor district at the time of his research. He
was told that the people of Huley, where the snow remains for
three to six months, have sufficient bread for only nine months;
the rest of the year they subsist on grass and roots. Huley
inhabitants could not keep large flocks owing to the scarcity of
pasture. Grjunberg (1972) reported that the Munji bred and
raised cows, sheep, goats, and some yaks. They grew few fruits
in the lowest villages because of the cold climate. They grew a
few grains in small, rocky patches of ground. The Munji traded
with Faizabad, on the Kokcha River, to the north and some with
Nuristan to the south. They carried salt south to exchange for
wool, butter, hides, cows, felt, and wooden utensils.
Morgenstierne (1938) said that he saw them transporting rock-
salt to Chitral town. He also reported that they worked in the

lapis lazuli mines in the Kokcha Valley.
7.4 Demographic information
Respondents involved in this study said that, due to the war

in Afghanistan, some of the men return to the Munjan Valley
from Chitral to tend fields during the summer, but none of the
Munji live there now. Most of the men find some type of work to
supplement the supplies given to them as refugees.
The Munji, like the Yidgha, are Ismaili Muslims. As with

the Yidgha, religious and political control has historically come
from outside of their area; both their religious leaders and the
political offices were previously located in Kuran on the Kokcha
River.
In 1924, Vavilov (cited in Grjunberg 1972) counted 464

houses in the Munjan Valley. He estimated two or three people
per house, for a total population of 1000 to 1500 people. A few
years later, in 1929, Morgenstierne (1938) estimated 172 Munji
households. He used a higher per-household estimate of six to
nine people, for a similar total population of 1000 to 1500
people. In 1967, Grjunberg (1972) estimated that the population
was 278 households. He did not estimate the number of
individuals. If Morgenstierne and Grjunberg’s counts were
accurate, there may have been a fifty percent increase in the
population between 1929 and 1967. If this growth rate has
continued, there may be 2000 to 2500 Munji speakers today.
However, the population may have decreased due to the war.
There is no confirmation of the size of the Munji-speaking
population.
Grjunberg (1972) reported that in 1967 there were no

schools in the Munjan Valley and very few people were literate.
Today some refugee children from other language groups from
Afghanistan are getting education in Chitral, but nothing is
known specifically about Munji children.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 55
7.5 Linguistic classification
As described in §6.1, Munji is classified with Yidgha as an

Indo-Iranian, South-East Iranian, Pamir (or Ghalchah) language.
Munji and Yidgha have a close historical connection, but
according to Morgenstierne (1938) the languages show
considerable differences.
7.6 Reported linguistic variation in Munji
Morgenstierne (1938) divided Munji into two dialects on the

basis of phonetic differences between the villages of the lower
Munjan Valley and the Mamalgha Valley and the higher villages
in the Munjan Valley.
Grjunberg (1972) divided Munji into four dialects: a lower
variety in Shoron, Dashk, and Ghumonda; a central variety in
Spazmina, Ghaz, and Vilgva; and an upper variety in Waya,
Shola, Yughdak, Panim, and Hojakkay.6 He said that there is a
fourth variety in the highest village of Huley, but he was not able
to collect any information from that village. According to
Grjunberg, the lower and central varieties are quite close, but the
difference is greater between the lower and upper varieties.7
In this study, a word list was collected from a respondent
from Hojakkay. He had not been in his village for thirteen years
and said that nowadays he speaks Persian more frequently than
Munji. This word list was compared with Morgenstierne’s (1938)
data. There were 142 items in common between both lists. The
items were compared, pair by pair, in order to determine the
extent to which the corresponding lexical items are similar.8 The
comparison between Morgenstierne’s Munji word list and the
6
He does not mention Lavowant, but presumably it would fall in either
the lower or the central variety due to geographical location.
7
For further information regarding features separating the dialects of
Munji consult Grjunberg (1972).
8
See §8 and appendix A for explanations of the purpose and
methodology for lexical similarity counts.
Hojakkay Munji list collected for this research shows 68 percent

lexical similarity.
Such a low percentage of lexical similarity between
varieties of Munji is somewhat puzzling. Both Morgenstierne
(1938) and Grjunberg (1972) reported that the differences
between the Munji speech varieties are minor and probably cause
little difficulty in comprehension between speakers of the
different forms.
The Hojakkay word list collected in this study, and
Morgenstierne’s (1932) Miandeh (Shola) data, represent what
Grjunberg called his upper Munji variety; however most of
Morgenstierne’s data came from villages in the central and lower
variety areas. Morgenstierne notes phonological differences
between Miandeh (Shola) and the lower villages. In any case, the
lexical similarity comparisons calculated for this study do not
seem to support the conclusion that variations within Munji are
minor, as has been reported by Morgenstierne and Grjunberg.9
7.7 Interaction with and use of neighboring languages

The frequency of social interaction with speakers of other
languages is both a reason for learning and a means of learning
another language. The regional Badakhshan variety of Persian is
spoken by a large portion of the population of northern
Afghanistan, including villages in the Kuran area, to the north of
the Munji area. Historically the Munji have traded and found
employment in the Kokcha Valley and other Persian-speaking
areas. For centuries, the Munji have had contact with Persian
speakers traveling through the Mamalgha Valley to Garam
Chishma in Chitral for trade. Robertson (1896) and Grjunberg
(1972) reported that all the Munji are bilingual in Persian. The
older respondent interviewed for this study said that he
commonly speaks Persian. Both participants said that the women
are as fluent as the men in Persian and that the children learn
9
It may be that the speech of the Hojakkay man who gave the word list
for this research has been influenced by contact with other languages,
especially Persian, due to his many years away from his homeland as a refugee.
How representative this man’s speech is of other Munji speakers is difficult to
evaluate.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 57
Persian by the time they are five years old. These reports indicate
a significant amount of contact with Persian speakers, and that
the Munji place a high value on the ability to use Persian.
The Munji have been in contact with speakers of other
languages as well. Grjunberg (1972) reported that Nau, the
highest settlement in the Munjan Valley, is inhabited by speakers
of the Nuristani language, Western Kativiri. Morgenstierne
(1930), Grjunberg (1972), and Snoy (1965) have reported contact
between Munji and Nuristan through the Prasun Valley,
southeast of the Munjan Valley, where the Nuristani language
called Prasun (also called Wasi-weri) is the predominant
language. There does not seem to be any research on the
linguistic influences between these neighboring language
communities.
7.8 Evidence of language vitality
There are not much data available on the vitality of Munji.

The Munji respondents said that Munji is still the language of the
home, but that outside of the home it is used only for secret
conversations. Bilingualism in Persian may be widespread, but it
is not clear whether an increase in the use of Persian has
coincided with a shift away from the maintenance of Munji. The
extent of proficiency in Persian among Munji speakers has not
been researched. It is difficult to assess the vitality of any
language on the basis of speakers who are living as refugees in
areas where other, more dominant, languages are spoken.
8. RELATIONSHIP OF YIDGHA AND MUNJI
Morgenstierne (1938) states that Munji is distinct from

Yidgha in phonology, morphology, and particularly vocabulary;
words borrowed from Khowar are rare in Munji. The processes
of borrowing from different languages have contributed to the
divergence of Munji and Yidgha according to Morgenstierne.
Munji has borrowed vocabulary from, and been influenced by
Persian. Whereas Yidgha has been influenced by, and borrowed
vocabulary from Khowar. In some cases, Munji and Yidgha use
different forms of Persian words; some Yidgha words are
borrowed from Khowar but are Persian in origin. Where Munji

has borrowed a Persian word, Yidgha retains ancient forms of
words from a proto-Munji-Yidgha. Yidgha, not Munji, has
borrowed some words from Nuristani languages.
8.1 Relationship by lexical similarity
The Yidgha and Hojakkay Munji word lists,10 collected for

this present study, were checked with Morgenstierne’s (1938)
Yidgha and Munji word lists, and with Grjunberg’s (1972) Munji
word list. Through these checks some items were discarded due
to uncertain responses to elicitation. There were a total of 187
words compared between Yidgha and Munji. The Munji and
Yidgha words were compared, pair by pair, in order to determine
the extent to which the corresponding lexical items are similar. In
this procedure no attempt was made to identify true cognates
based on consistent sound correspondences. Rather, the items are
compared only for obvious phonetic similarity.11 This
comparison revealed 56 percent lexical similarity between
Yidgha and Munji.
8.2 Indications of comprehension between languages
Neither lexical similarity percentages, nor respondent

opinions can empirically predict comprehension between
languages. However, they may give indications of whether or not
comprehension may be possible. A short text was recorded in
Yidgha and was played for the Munji respondents to get their
opinions regarding its comprehensibility. This is not intended to
be considered as conclusive evidence of intelligibility, only as a
preliminary subjective response from the Munji respondents. The
older man said that Yidgha sounded a little different from Munji
but he could understand it. He gave a brief but concise
description of the story. Interestingly, after listening to the text,
the Munji teenager, reported that he could not understand it, even
though his mother is Yidgha.
10
The complete Yidgha and Munji word lists are included in appendix B.
11
See appendix A for a more thorough description of the method.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 59
Some of the Yidgha respondents said that they had heard

that there was a similar language spoken on the other side of the
mountains, but only two of them had ever met a Munji speaker.
These two men said it was difficult to understand Munji. The
reported lack of contact with Munji speakers is curious because
there is evidence that the Munji frequently pass through the
Yidgha villages on the way to and from Chitral town for trade.
Possibly the Munji are aware that the languages are different
enough, and speak only Persian when they are in Chitral. Thus,
the Yidgha would think that the people traveling through their
villages are Persian speakers from Badakhshan. Clearly, more
research is needed into the linguistic relationship between Munji
and Yidgha.
9. INTERACTION OF YIDGHA WITH NEIGHBORING

LANGUAGES
The Yidgha are surrounded by several different language

groups, and speakers of other languages travel through the
Yidgha area. However, there is very little interaction with most
of these other language groups. Northwest of the Yidgha area, is
the Sanglech Valley. In the northern end of this valley the Pamir
language Sanglechi is spoken. There was no reported contact of
Yidgha speakers with Sanglechi speakers.
Munji is spoken in the Munjan and Mamalgha Valley, to the
west of the Lutkuh Valley. One respondent reported that he
speaks Yidgha with people from the Munjan Valley but that it is
difficult to understand them.
Farther west, and in much of northern Afghanistan, the
Badakhshan variety of Persian is spoken. Many Persian speakers
travel through the Yidgha area to Garam Chishma and Chitral
town to transport supplies for trade. Many of the merchants in
Garam Chishma are Persian speakers. The Yidgha respondents
reported that they use the little bit of Farsi (Afghan Persian) that
they know for the infrequent interaction with Persian speakers.
Southwest of the Yidgha area is the Bashgal Valley. Eastern
Kativiri (also called Bashgali), a Nuristani language, is spoken
there. Gobar, the westernmost village in the Lutkuh Valley, has a

mixture of Eastern Kativiri, Yidgha, and Khowar speakers.
Eastern Kativiri-speaking goatherders reportedly graze their
flocks in the high pastures on the south side of the Lutkuh
Valley. Respondents reported that they only occasionally have
any contact with Eastern Kativiri speakers. One respondent said
that he knew a little Bashgali for speaking with people from
Gobar.
Khowar is the predominant language to the north and east of

the Yidgha area. The respondents reported that their most
frequent out-group contact is with Khowar speakers. Yidgha has
borrowed many words from Khowar. Most of the schoolteachers
in the Yidgha villages are Khowar speakers. Much of the
instruction is given in Khowar, especially at the lower levels.
Based on information collected through interviews, observation,
and questionnaires, Khowar seems to be considered prestigious
among the Yidgha.
Although there are probably no mother-tongue speakers of

Urdu in the Yidgha area, the fact that it is the national language
of Pakistan bears some influence. The administrative offices of
the tehsil are in Garam Chishma, and possibly some political
affairs are handled in Urdu. Urdu is required for higher education
and government jobs; therefore, some Yidgha men reported that
it is desirable to learn Urdu.
10. SECOND LANGUAGE USE AND ACQUISITION
A common means of second language acquisition and a

purpose for second language use is social interaction with
speakers of that language. Social contact with neighbors,
business acquaintances, civil servants, or educators can take
place within or outside of the local community. This kind of
contact appears to be more common between Yidgha and
Khowar speakers in the eastern villages. The two respondents
from Gufti said that they have weekly contact with Khowar
speakers, whereas, in Rui and the villages east of it, daily contact
is reported. There are a few Yidgha-speaking shopkeepers in the
valley, but most men do some shopping in Chitral town, where
Chapter 3 Yidgha 61
they have contact with Khowar speakers. There is also language

contact through radio and music cassettes. Most participants said
that they listen to Khowar radio programs sometimes or often.
Three of the interviewees reported that they listen to Urdu
programs often. Several of the men said that they like to listen to
Urdu and Khowar music cassettes.
The respondents said that politicians and government

officials speak Khowar or Urdu when in the Yidgha villages.
Even a Yidgha man giving a political speech in a Yidgha village
will usually speak in Khowar. There is a government border
control post at Parabek that is staffed by Khowar speakers. The
participants said that they would speak Khowar with policemen
passing through their villages.
Respondents said that Yidgha is useful for explaining

religious teaching, but that preaching in the mosque is in
Khowar. They said that they would speak to their religious
leaders in Khowar.
One man said that Yidgha men rarely leave the Lutkuh
Valley for work. The respondents said that they speak Yidgha or
Khowar with their co-workers in the Lutkuh Valley. Given all of
the other information, this does not necessarily imply that they
work with mother-tongue Khowar speakers. Four participants
said that Urdu is the most important language for getting a job;
two said that Khowar is also important.
Travel to other areas is sometimes a means and a reason for

learning other languages. Only one of the respondents had
traveled outside of Chitral District. He visited Peshawar for three
months, where he spoke Urdu. Other interviewees said that they
often go to Chitral town, but that only a few men travel as far as
Peshawar, Karachi, Quetta, or Lahore. When traveling on local
transportation and in Chitral town, they speak Khowar. One man
said that if he is traveling with another Yidgha man and wants to
tell him something secretly, he will speak in Yidgha.
10.1 Education and language choice
The Yidgha’s primary motivation to acquire a second

language is the desire to improve their standard of living;
education is seen as opening up opportunities for better jobs.
This perception is particularly true in the eastern villages;
respondents reported that few children from the western villages
go to school. Several of the respondents reported that they want
their children to be able to speak Khowar so that they will have
better opportunities for education in the high schools and
colleges located in Khowar-speaking areas.
Khowar and Urdu are the languages of education in the
Yidgha area. Khowar is used for explanations in the lower
grades, and in the upper grades both Khowar and Urdu are used.
One respondent said that explanations may be given in Yidgha
only if the teacher is Yidgha. Many of the teachers are mother-
tongue Khowar speakers. The Yidgha perceive Khowar as the
avenue of access to mastery of Urdu; there is a desire for more
proficiency in Khowar. Respondents reported that children are
allowed to speak Yidgha in school. There are a few Khowar-
speaking children in some of the schools.
10.2 Marriage patterns and language choice
The interviewees said that many (possibly as many as fifty

percent) of the Yidgha men marry Khowar-speaking women.
However, converse to the usual pattern of ethnolinguistic groups
in Chitral, the language of the mother, Khowar, is reported to be
the language used with children in these homes. Some of the men
reported that these marriages are preferred so that their children
will be Khowar speakers and then the children will have better
education and employment opportunities. Two of the
respondents have Khowar-speaking wives. The participants said
that they would allow their daughters to marry only Yidgha or
Khowar speakers. One respondent specified that the Yidgha did
not allow marriages with Munji, but the mother of one of the
Munji respondents is Yidgha.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 63
The interviewees said that all Yidgha can speak Khowar.

All but one of the respondents said that Khowar is their best
second language. Other languages which respondents reported
having some ability in are: Urdu, Farsi [Persian], and Bashgali
[Eastern Kativiri].
Interview information and the opinion of the Khowar
mother-tongue co-worker involved in this study indicate that
many of the Yidgha are not fluent in Khowar. The co-worker
said that he could understand the respondents’ Khowar but that
they used unusual pronunciation and grammatical constructions.
Some of the respondents were aware that they do not speak
Khowar well and said they want to improve their ability. One
respondent said Chitralis laugh at them when they speak
Khowar.
The respondents reported on the second language
proficiency of their family members. Two of the participants
have Khowar-speaking wives. All of the respondents said their
wives and children are able to speak Khowar. Several of the men
said that they usually speak Khowar with their wives and
children.
Several respondents reported that their parents were also
able to speak Khowar. The respondents said that in their
childhood Yidgha had been the language of their homes and
neighborhoods, but today Khowar is more frequently used.
Therefore, it appears that the use of Khowar may have increased
in Yidgha communities.

Interview and questionnaire information based on the seven
Yidgha respondents indicate a mixed picture, including some
indications of decreasing vitality. The respondents’ attitudes
toward Yidgha seemed ambivalent toward the possibilities of
loss of their language and the shift to Khowar.12 On the positive
12
The case is similar to that of Phalura speakers in the village of Ghos.
(See Chapter 4.)
side, Yidgha is seen as useful for numerous in-group functions.

The respondents said they would use Yidgha for communicating
an important message to people in their area. They use Yidgha
when explaining religious beliefs within the community. They
use it when speaking with their parents, village elders, friends,
neighbors, and some co-workers. Several of the respondents said
that it would not be good for their people, as a group, to lose
their language. They felt that if they ceased using their language,
the result would be the loss of their culture. Some of the
respondents said they did not believe it was possible for another
language to replace their language. However, the same
respondents who were so positive about the value of Yidgha later
said that Yidgha would probably not be the language that their
children would use most frequently in the future.
Other respondents said that they clearly see the end of their
language. One man said the use of Khowar rather than Yidgha is
“good for the young and future generations because of their
education.” Most of the respondents said that Khowar is the
language commonly spoken in their homes. They said that many
of the men prefer to marry Khowar-speaking wives so that their
children will be Khowar speakers. They said that their children
cannot speak Yidgha purely; they mix it with Khowar. They
predicted that their children will generally speak Khowar in
adulthood. One respondent from Zhitor said that Yidgha is most
endangered in the five eastern villages because more Khowar
speakers live near those villages. While the respondents identify
with Yidgha, they appear to be resigned to the loss of its
usefulness in many domains. Two respondents said that the
changes coming to their community are good. They were
specifically referring to new roads, schools, and health care, but
the implication was that language shift was part of the change.
These two men said that they want to use Khowar more, and that
they want to improve their ability in Khowar. They said “this is
progress” and “this is development.” All these responses
favoring the use of Khowar need to be evaluated in light of
evidence that Khowar proficiency is limited within the Yidgha
community, as noted in the previous section.
Chapter 3 Yidgha 65
Yidgha seems to be distinct enough from Munji to be

classified as a separate language. Through the years of separation
from its sister language, Yidgha has diverged in lexicon and
phonology. There is some inconclusive evidence that the Munji
refugees in Pakistan can understand Yidgha better than the
Yidgha can understand Munji. There does not seem to have been
any significant contact between the two groups for many
generations.
The Munji relocated to Chitral as refugees from the war in

Afghanistan. There is no way of knowing how long they will
stay and whether they will return to the Munjan and Mamalgha
Valleys. Persian appears to be the second language of choice for
the Munji.
There are indications that the Yidgha desire to maintain the

use of their mother-tongue. However, there are also indications
of shift toward the use of Khowar. The levels of Khowar
proficiency among the Yidgha community have not been fully
researched, but questionnaires and interviews indicate that many
Yidgha have functional but non-native proficiency in Khowar.
Khowar and Urdu are perceived as having prestigious status to
the Yidgha. The Yidgha perceive access to Urdu to be through
the mastery of Khowar. Both languages offer educational and
employment possibilities that the Yidgha obviously feel they
cannot obtain through their mother tongue.
A more complete description of the sociolinguistic

environment of the Yidgha community is needed. These limited
observations show that the Yidgha, in some villages, may be
switching to the use of Khowar. Are the Yidgha really speaking
primarily Khowar in their homes? Is it true that, as one
respondent reported, as many as fifty percent of marriages are
between Yidgha men and Khowar-speaking women? It would be
an unusual and interesting situation if Yidgha is truly used more
for neighborhood communication than for communication in the
home. If it is true that, historically, Yidgha was not the original
language of this ethnic group, then this may explain why some
indicate resignation to the loss of Yidgha, rather than fighting to

maintain its use. Since some of the forebears of the present day
speakers of Yidgha seem to have shifted from their ethnic group
language to the use of Yidgha, the current generation may not
feel so strong an attachment to the language. Perhaps in light of
the upward mobility advantages of other languages, the
community will undergo language shift once more. Obviously
much more could be learned from further research.
67
CHAPTER 4
PHALURA
This chapter discusses the sociolinguistic environment of

Phalura, a language spoken in southern Chitral, and the related
language, Sawi, spoken in Sau, Afghanistan. Through the
collection of descriptive linguistic data, this study investigated
language variation and relationships of several related linguistic
varieties. To evaluate the vitality of Phalura, various forms of
evidence were considered, including: reported language use,
certain customs, and language attitudes. Sociolinguistic data
related to multilingual proficiency, language use, and language
contact were collected and are discussed in this study.
Information for this survey was collected during the
summers of 1989 and 1990. Word lists were collected from
Purigal, Biori, Ashret, and from refugees from Sau, Afghanistan.
Questionnaires and interviews were conducted with twenty-
seven respondents from the Phalura-speaking villages, Sau, and
Badrugal.
Phalura is spoken primarily in eight villages on the east side

of the Chitral Valley near Drosh in southern Chitral. (See map 4.)
The southernmost village is Ashret, located on the main road
between Dir and Chitral. Ashret is approximately 18 kilometers
south of Drosh, part of the way up a large side valley that leads
to Lowari Pass. The next village to the north that is inhabited by
Phalura speakers is Kalkatak. It is in the main valley, situated on
cliffs above the Chitral River about six kilometers south of
Drosh; it is also on the main road. About two kilometers north of
Kalkatak and four kilometers south of Drosh is the Biori Valley.
There are three villages of Phalura speakers along a dirt road
accessible by jeep in this valley. One kilometer into the valley is

Lur (lower) Biori. Another kilometer up the valley is Muz
(middle) Biori, and two kilometers more, at the end of the dirt
road, is Bur (upper) Biori. The valley eventually connects with
Lowari Pass at the top. The next village of Phalura speakers is
Ghos, which is on the mountainside about one or two kilometers
east of the Drosh bazaar. There is no road to Ghos. The
northernmost village of Phalura speakers is Purigal in the Shishi
Koh Valley. It is about 20 kilometers north of Drosh and about
one or two kilometers’ walk up the east hillside from the dirt
road. By road the distance from Purigal to Ashret is about 38
kilometers, which takes about two hours by jeep.
Three other villages should be mentioned. Respondents

involved in this study described a village called Gumendand in
Dir District. It is said that one family from Ashret moved to
Gumendand and that Phalura is now its language.
Morgenstierne’s (1941) respondents also referred to this place.
These reports are still unconfirmed.1
The second village of note, Badrugal, is located halfway

between Kalkatak and Ashret. (See map 4.) The respondents
reported that the people of Badrugal came from the Gawardesh
area nearby in Afghanistan. Although Shekhani is the first
language of the village, Phalura has become the common second
language of many of the people because of the frequent contact
with the Phalura-speaking people from Ashret, Kalkatak, and
Biori.
Finally, the village of Sau, Afghanistan will be discussed

occasionally throughout this chapter. Sau is located on the Kunar
River about 20 kilometers south of Arandu, which is on the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border. (See map 3.) The language spoken
by the people of Sau, called Sawi by Morgenstierne (1941), is
related to Phalura. The language is not spoken in Chitral except
by refugees, and it is uncertain how long they will be in Pakistan.
1
There is a village in Dir north of Patrak called Gwaldai, which may be
the same village. A man from Dir reported that he knew of Gumendand. He
said it was located a two-hour walk up the valley from Patrak, but he did not
know anything about the language spoken there.
Chapter 4 Phalura 69
Some information was collected about Sawi and will be

discussed as it relates to Phalura.
3. HISTORY OF STUDY
In Tribes of the Hindoo Koosh, John Biddulph reported a

language spoken by a group of people in Chitral whom he called
Dangariké. He said that these people speak a language cognate
with Shina (1880:64). Unfortunately, he was not able to collect
any linguistic information from them. Captain B. E. M. Gurdon
(cited in Morgenstierne 1941), a British officer working in
Chitral from 1895 to 1902, reported a language he called Palola
or Dangarikwar. In 1929 Morgenstierne (1941) visited the
Chitral Valley and collected linguistic information from speakers
of Phalura from the villages of Ashret, Biori, and Purigal, and of
Sawi from Sau, Afghanistan. Morgenstierne’s study of the
language, Notes on PhalüR a: an Unknown Dardic Language of
Chitral, was published in 1941.
What is referred to in this report as the Phalura language

also has several different names and spellings. Phalur4a is used in
most of the literature. Most of the respondents involved in this
study called the language and the people Dangarik. Some of the
interviewees knew of the name Phalura for the language, but a
few of them said that this name is no longer used. Several men
also said that the term Dangarik is somewhat derogatory.2 The
name Phalura has also been written as: Phalula, Phalüra, Phalür4a,
2
In a paper concerning the language vitality of the Phalura-speaking
community submitted by this author at the Second International Hindu Kush
Cultural Conference in September, 1990, the people and language were called
Dangarik (Decker 1990). Prof. Karl Jettmar, and a couple of men from Ashret
at the conference, said that the proper term for the language is Phalura. The
men from Ashret added that the people should be referred to as Phalulo. They
said that Dangarik is what Khowar-speakers call them.
Palula, and Palola. Khowar speakers sometimes call the language

Dangarikwar. Two respondents said that some people used to
call the language Tangiri or Tangarik and Chilasi, reflecting the
group’s tradition that they originally came from the Indus Valley
in the area of Chilas and the Tangir Valley. The term Ashreti is
also commonly used for the speech of the people of Ashret and
Biori for the speech of the people of the Biori Valley.
4.2 History
Biddulph (1880:113-114) knew of no interaction between

the Phalura and the Shin of Gilgit. He felt that the term Dangarik
suggested that the Phalura had previously been Hindus like the
Shin. He referred to the area around Chilas, south of Gilgit, as
Dangaristan and discussed how the term Dangarik has been
applied to the Shina-speaking people. He (1880:65) also noted a
tradition that the valley around Mastuj was at one time ruled over
by Dangariks, whom he felt were probably Shin from the Gilgit
Valley.
Morgenstierne’s (1941) respondents, as well as many of the

respondents who participated in this study, agreed that their
people had come from Chilas. Neither Morgenstierne’s
respondents (1941), nor those involved in this study knew when
this migration had taken place, the route they had taken, or the
reason they had left the Indus Valley. Morgenstierne believed
that Phalura is probably an early offshoot of Shina.
Buddruss (1967:11) hypothesized that the Phalura-Sawi

group left the main Shina group in the Chilas region and traveled
west. Soon thereafter the groups split, with the Sawi group going
toward the southwest. The separation of the Phalura-Sawi group
from the main Shina group must have taken place a long time
ago, since Fussman (1972:398) shows that changes in the Mayia3-
Indus Shina group (another dialect of Shina geographically and
genetically close to Chilasi Shina) have occurred since the
Phalura-Sawi group separated from it. He says that Phalura has
been spoken in the Drosh area of Chitral long enough for some
vocabulary to be exchanged with the neighboring languages and
for slight dialectal differences between some of the villages to

develop.
Small bits of information concerning the history of the

Phalulo were collected from respondents. Several of them said a
village called Dangari, located near Gilgit in the Ghizr Valley,
may have been an earlier location of their tribe. The existence of
this village was not confirmed. One respondent said that their
Phalulo forefathers had come to Chitral from Chilas by way of
Shandur Pass, spreading to Ashret, then to the other villages.
According to Inayatullah Faizi (1990), many of the people who
now live in the area of Laspur near Shandur Pass consider
themselves members of the Phalulo tribe, but have adopted
Khowar as their language. This may be the same group referred
to by Biddulph (1880:65) as living in the area of Mastuj.
One respondent said that originally several brothers came to
the area; one settled in Purigal, one in Bur Biori, one in Muz
Biori, and another in Ashret. He thought that Ghos was settled by
people from either Biori or Purigal. He thought that originally
one person from Ashret settled in Gumendand 40 or 50 years
ago. It would have had to be earlier than that because
Morgenstierne (1941) had heard of Phalura being spoken at
Gumendand in 1929. A man in Kalkatak said that he thought that
the people in Biori had originally moved there from Kalkatak,
but respondents in Biori vigorously denied this. One of the
respondents said that his people had come to Chitral “…before
our grandfathers’ grandfathers, before there was a king in
Chitral.” Another respondent said that possibly it had happened
500 years ago. The Phalulo may have once inhabited a larger
area. Schomberg (cited in Morgenstierne 1973:189) reported that
the Kalasha Rumbur Valley “…was formerly in the possession of
the Dangariks.”
A member of the Union of the Descendants of Choke and
Machoke, Ahmad Saeed, from Ashret, has provided me with a
history of the Phalura people and a geneology that records all the
generations from the brothers Choke and Machoke, the original
migrants from Chilas on the Indus River (Saeed ms.).
Apparently, the two brothers, or possibly they were father and
son, lost a bid for the leadership of the tribe. The brothers and
their followers migrated west, some going through Swat and

others into northern Chitral. Machoke left his eldest son in
Laspur, near Shandur Pass.3 One of the brothers, or another son,
settled in Kalas in the Shishi Koh Valley. Choke went to Ashret
and Machoke, or another son, went to Afghanistan.
According to Ahmad Saeed, the Phalulo of Biori and Ghos

came from Bihar in Dir. The legend tells of several battles with
the Kalasha through which Choke gained control of the Ashret
Valley. The story of another battle tells how the Phalulo subdued
the Gawar of Arandu for the Khowar-speaking Rais Mehtar.
Other Phalura ancestors have held religious and political offices
in the Chitral government.
It is interesting to see how the parts of the puzzle have come

together over the last 100 years. It appears that the traditions
have a certain amount of validity. Apparently the Phalura came
from the Tangir-Chilas region of the Indus Valley. There may
have been two or three routes taken west: one group going
northwest to Shandur Pass then south, first to southern Chitral,
then some people may have gone on to Sau. Another group may
have gone west from the Indus Valley through Swat and Dir.
This second group may have then split into two groups, one
group going into southern Chitral, and the other group going to
Sau.
The geneology provided by Ahmad Saeed lists fifteen or

sixteen generations since the brothers Choke and Machoke.
Calculating thirty years per generation the migration would have
begun in the early sixteenth century A.D. Ahmad Saeed says that
the migration from Chilas to Chitral began in the thirteenth
century A.D. According to Prof. Israr-ud-Din (1979:4) the Rais
Mehtar did not expand into southern Chitral until the fourteenth
century; this could have been in conjunction with the movement
of the Phalura into the area. So there is a 300 year period (1200–
1500 A.D.) when the Phalulo may have entered and settled in
Chitral.
3
Ahmad Saeed also describes two villages, Awi and Riri in Oveer in
northern Chitral, inhabited by descendants of Kachote, whose tale is very
similar to that of Choke and Machoke.
5.1 Agriculture and economics in villages south of Drosh
Ashret is at the end of the main paved road in southern

Chitral. It is the first large village one enters after crossing the
Lowari Pass on the road into the Chitral District. The Ashret
Valley has an ample supply of water for irrigation, so many fruits
and grains are grown on the terraced hillsides. The bottom of the
valley is wide enough and the road is built far enough up on the
hillside that floods do not affect travel into the main Chitral
Valley. Therefore, the farmers can take their produce to the
bazaars of Drosh and Chitral, and the people of Ashret can get to
these bazaars for their needs.
Kalkatak is on the main paved road of southern Chitral. It
has a small bazaar and some fairly level land for farming. There
is an ample water supply for irrigation of fields and orchards.
The village is situated high enough above the Chitral River that
flooding is not a problem. The village is also low enough that
snow in winter does not block travel to Drosh.
The Biori Valley, in which the three Biori villages are
located, is narrow, especially at the end where it meets the
Chitral River. In the past, the trail out of the valley at this end
was often washed out, cutting the Biori people off from the
Chitral Valley, although there are higher trails that cross the
shoulders of the mountains. There is a dirt road to the upper
village that at best is only accessible by jeep and still sometimes
gets washed out. The valley has sufficient space for fields to
support a small community and has a good water supply for
irrigation.
5.2 Agriculture and economics in villages north of Drosh
The village of Ghos was not visited as part of this study;

therefore, information is minimal. However, it can be said that
the area surrounding Ghos appears to be steep and dry. A
respondent from Ghos said that it is not good for farming. The
people apparently rely on the sale of firewood in Drosh to

supplement their resources. There is no road to Ghos.
Purigal, in the Shishi Koh Valley, is built in a small glen
alongside some cliffs. The stream coming down through the glen
is small and there does not appear to be much room for fields.
The situation is not great for farming, but the land seems to be
sufficient to provide for the small community.
The Phalura are Sunni Muslims. Some men, especially from

Biori, have gone to Peshawar to get religious training.
Some men from Biori, Ashret, and Kalkatak have been
involved in local politics and held government service jobs. All
government and police offices are in either Drosh or Chitral
town. Some Phalura men have served their country in the Chitral
Scouts and other divisions of the Pakistan Army. There is a large
Afghan refugee camp near Kalkatak that has brought problems
associated with a sudden rise in population, such as crime and
inter-tribal friction.

language. There are 1987 population figures available for certain
villages from the Chitral District Council, but because some of
the Phalura villages are multilingual communities, these figures
need to be adjusted. These population figures along with
respondent estimates have been interpreted to arrive at some
estimation of the number of people who speak Phalura. Chart 1
compares the population estimates for locations where Phalura is
spoken.
Chart 1
Population Estimates for Locations Where Phalura is Spoken.
Respondent 1987 Chitral

Opinion (Phalura speakers) District Council
Ashret 2000-4000 individuals 4863*
Kalkatak 300-2000 individuals 6779*
Bur Biori 120 families 658
Muz Biori 80 families
Lur Biori 70-100 families 696
All Biori 1500-2000 individuals 1354
Ghos 48-60 families 244*
Purigal 45 families, 6 to 7 people per family 251
*Includes speakers of other languages
There are a number of difficulties in attempting to interpret

these figures. According to respondent opinion Ashret includes
30 to 50 Pashto speakers, 20 to 30 Khowar speakers, 20 Gujari
speakers, and 10 Dameli speakers. In Kalkatak there are also
Kalasha and Khowar speakers. There is a great discrepancy
concerning the number of Phalura speakers in Kalkatak; one
respondent said that thirty percent of the village is Phalura-
speaking, but another respondent said that there are only 11 to 13
non-Phalura-speaking families in the village. Thirty percent may
be closer to accurate, since none of the respondents estimated
anything close to 6000 Phalura speakers in Kalkatak. It is unclear
if either of the Chitral District Council figures for the Biori
villages includes Muz Biori. It may be assumed that Muz Biori
has been grouped with Lur Biori in the Council figures. It is
difficult to say what percentage of Ghos is purely Phalura-
speaking, as there has been intermarriage with Khowar speakers.
Finally, according to Israr-ud-Din (1969:55) the average Phalulo
family has four members. No information was obtained on
Phalura speakers in Gumendand, so they are not included in
these calculations.
According to respondent estimates, there are 4200 to 10,400
Phalura speakers. The median figure of this range is 7300. The
total of the District Council figures (using thirty percent of the

Kalkatak figure), is an estimated 8600 speakers of Phalura.
Schooling has been available to Phalulo children in Drosh

since the mid 1940s, and for quite a few years in some of the
Phalura villages. There are elementary and middle schools near
to all villages, if not actually in the village. The respondents
reported that many of the adult Phalura-speaking men have
received some education. More than half of the respondents were
educated beyond fifth class level. Several of the men had
university degrees. Today most of the Phalura boys and some of
the girls attend school. Apparently only a few of the teachers in
Ashret, Biori, and Kalkatak are Phalura speakers. Education
seems to be less prevalent in Ghos and Purigal.
5.6 Contact between villages
There is not a great amount of contact between people from

different villages due to their disconnected locations. There is
more contact between people in the southern villages but the
respondents in the south reported that they rarely have contact
with Phalura speakers from Purigal. Respondents from Ghos and
Purigal said that they meet people from Biori and Ashret
occasionally in the bazaar in Drosh. The important cultural
contact occurs when people from many villages gather for
weddings and funerals.
6. LINGUISTIC SETTING
6.1 Linguistic affiliation
Morgenstierne was certain that Phalura is closely related to

Shina, but noted that it is more archaic than any dialect of Shina
(1941:8). As a Shina-related language (Strand 1973:302),
Phalura is in the Dardic family in the Northwestern zone of Indo-
Aryan (Indic) languages. Fussman (1972:393) makes a more

specific grouping, placing Phalura with Shina in an Eastern
Dardic group.
6.2 Language group
Biddulph (1880) identified Phalura as being cognate with

Shina. Morgenstierne (1941) later confirmed this by comparing
the phonetics, phonology, morphology, grammar, and lexicon of
Phalura with various Shina dialects. While he did believe the
traditions were true that Phalura had originally come from the
Chilas area, he did not find that it in any special way resembled
the present Chilasi Shina. Morgenstierne felt that Phalura is
probably an early offshoot of Shina that escaped from its
influence before Shina reached its present stage of development
(1941:8-9). Some words in the lexicon of Phalura are obviously
borrowed from the surrounding languages and are not traditional
Shina words.
7. THE LANGUAGE OF SAU
Knowledge of the language of Sau, Afghanistan, is not very

complete. Morgenstierne’s (1941) respondent was not a mother-
tongue speaker of Sawi, but of Gawar-bati. Buddruss (1967)
collected information on the language in Chaga Sarai during the
winter of 1955-1956. His one respondent was originally from
Sau but had not lived in the village for several years, and
Buddruss was able to work with him for only a day and a half.
Lentz (cited in Buddruss 1967) is the only linguist who has been
able to collect data in Sau, which he did in 1935; unfortunately
he published only a short word list. In August 1989, two men
from Sau were interviewed for this study for a few hours one day
in Drosh. The word list collected from them agrees with the
information collected by Buddruss.
7.1 Social information concerning Sawi speakers
Morgenstierne (1941) and Buddruss (1967) used the name

Sawi (or Savi) for the language. The respondents involved in this
study said that the proper name is Sauji.4 They said that other
people sometimes call their language Kohistani or Gawar-bati
because they live surrounded by Gawar-bati speakers, but they
said their language is very different from Gawar-bati. Sawi has
been spoken in the area long enough to have been influenced by
Gawar-bati. (See §7.2.)
The respondents said that since the war in Afghanistan all
the people of Sau have moved to either the refugee camp near
Kalkatak in Chitral or a refugee camp near Timargarha in Dir. A
few are also reported to be living in a refugee camp between
Drosh and Chitral town in Chitral District. They said that when it
becomes safe, they hope to be able to return to their village.
There is a school for refugee children in Drosh, and several of
the teachers are from Sau. Buddruss reported that in 1956 there
were 100 homes in Sau. The Sawi-speaking participants involved
in this study estimated that before the war there had been 2000
homes accounting for 8000 to 12,000 people. There is no
verification of these numbers.
7.2 Linguistic affiliation of Sawi
Morgenstierne (1941:9) felt that Sawi had been influenced

to a large extent by Gawar-bati, but that it is really a dialect of
Phalura. Buddruss (1967) noted some influence of Gawar-bati on
the phonology of Sawi, plus a few loanwords from Gawar-bati.
He felt that Morgenstierne was correct in identifying Sawi as a
dialect of Phalura. While Sawi may very well be historically
related to Phalura, linguistic evidence presented by
Morgenstierne (1941) and Buddruss (1967) show that the two
languages have diverged significantly.
4
Sauji has not previously been reported as a name for this language. The
-ji affix on the location name may be related to the -o{e affix on the location
Gid used by Pashtoons for Dameli (Morgenstierne 1942:116).
8. RELATIONSHIP BY LEXICAL SIMILARITY
In this present study a standard list of 210 words was

collected from Phalura-speaking respondents in Ashret, Bur
Biori, and Purigal, and from Sawi-speaking respondents from
Sau, Afghanistan. Each word list was checked with at least one
other respondent from the same village. Portions of the Ashret
list were checked with a third respondent, and portions of the Bur
Biori list were checked with a man from Muz Biori. These lists
were also compared with lists taken from Morgenstierne’s (1941)
article on Phalura, Turner’s (1966-71) A Comparative Dictionary
of the Indo-Aryan Languages, and Fussman’s (1972) Atlas
Linguistique des Parlers Dardes et Kafirs. A comparison was
also done with a Palasi Shina word list.5 Palasi Shina was chosen
over Chilasi Shina because in a comparison between Biori
Phalura and Gilgiti, Chilasi, and Palasi Shina word lists, it was
found that Biori Phalura was more similar to Palasi Shina than to
Chilasi Shina.
Numerous checks of these word lists eliminated a few items

from each location. This left 203 words from Ashret, 203 words
from Biori, 200 words from Purigal, 198 words from Palas, and
202 words from Sau.6 Each word list was compared with all the
others, pair by pair, in order to determine the extent to which the
corresponding lexical items are similar. In this procedure no
attempt was made to identify true cognates based on consistent
sound correspondences. Rather, the items are compared only for
obvious phonetic similarity.7 A lexical similarity comparison is
represented in chart 2 with the percentage of words considered
similar between each of the locations:
5
The Palasi Shina word list is included in an accompanying volume
which includes research describing Shina. (See Radloff 1992.)
6
The complete Purigal, Biori, Ashret Phalura, and Sawi word lists are
included in appendix B.
7
Chart 2
Ashreti Phalura
95 Biori Phalura
92 95 Purigali Phalura
56 57 58 Sawi
42 42 38 33 Palasi Shina
When looking at the word lists, it is easy to see that there is

a historical cognate relationship between a greater percentage of
the words than this chart shows. The motivation behind a count
based on phonetic similarity, rather than historical cognates, is
that phonetic comparisons aim to indicate how much speakers
from different locations might understand each other in the
present. By looking at the lexical similarity percentages it can be
seen that there is little significant variation among the Phalura
locations. Sawi appears to be more similar to Phalura than to
Palasi Shina. Sawi appears to be sufficiently different to suggest
that speakers from Sau would have some difficulty
understanding speakers from any of the Phalura communities,
but this hypothesis has not been tested. These figures also
indicate that both the Phalura and Sawi communities would have
significant difficulty understanding the speech of Palas or any of
the other Shina-speaking communities to the east of Chitral.
8.2 Phonological variation
Morgenstierne (1941) did an analysis of Phalura that

included some comments on the dialectal variation within the
Phalura community and on the relationship of Phalura with Shina
and Sawi. His analysis of Phalura was based on the speech of
Ashret; he did not have a great deal of information on Biori
Phalura, Purigali Phalura, Sawi, or the varieties of Shina spoken
in the Indus Kohistan. Buddruss (1967) has added to that
knowledge of Sawi. For more information the reader is referred
to these works.
8.3 Reported comprehension between languages
Although respondent opinion is not empirical evidence, it

reveals perceptions. Respondents from Kalkatak, Biori, and Ghos
said that Ashreti Phalura was slightly different, but most of them
felt that they have no difficulty understanding the speech of
Ashret. A few respondents from the southern villages said that
the speech of Purigal is a little different but not difficult to
understand. A respondent from Biori said that the speech of
Kalkatak has a slight influence from Kalasha. One respondent
from Biori said that some words in Ashreti Phalura sound like
they have Pashto influence. The respondents generally agreed
that the variations consisted of a few words being different or
differences in pronunciation from village to village.
Short texts8 were recorded from Ashret, Biori, and Purigal

for the purpose of comprehension testing, but they were not used
for that purpose. The texts were played in several locations to get
respondent opinions; this was not intended to be considered as
conclusive evidence of levels of comprehension. After hearing
the text the respondents were asked if they could identify the
location and how well they could understand the text. They were
also asked to briefly retell the story to check if they had any
problems with comprehension. Most of the respondents correctly
identified the village from which the text had been recorded.
They all reported that they completely understood the stories.
Questionnaire information indicates that Biori Phalura was

felt to be the best and purest form of the language. Some
respondents from Ghos and Purigal felt that their speech was the
purest. Most respondents felt that the speech of Ashret is altered
from its pure form and is not good Phalura.
Based on the low percentage of lexical similarity (less than

50 percent) between Phalura and Palasi Shina, it would not be
expected that there would be any significant comprehension
between speakers of these languages. Although there is a
historical connection between these languages, they have
8
The texts are found in appendix C.3.1-3.
diverged in many ways. Respondents from Ashret said that they

could understand only a little bit of the radio programs they had
heard in Gilgiti Shina. However, when one man was asked if he
thought that Phalura was like Shina, he said, “It is Shina”.
Several other respondents in Ashret agreed that Phalura is like
Shina but said they could understand only a little Shina. One
respondent from Kalkatak said he could understand about half of
the Shina on the radio. Other respondents said that they had
heard the Shina broadcasts but could not understand them so
never listened to them.
Since Sawi has a lexical similarity of 56 percent to 58

percent with Phalura, there could be a limited degree of
comprehension between Phalura and Sawi speakers. Respondents
from Sau said that Ashreti Phalura is somewhat different from
Sawi and that it is difficult for them to understand. The
respondent Buddruss (1967) worked with said that he could
understand the “words of Ashreti (Phalura)” and that it was only
a bit different from his language.
9. NEIGHBORING LANGUAGES
The Phalura community lies in the midst of a linguistic

whirlpool. At least eight other languages are spoken in and
around the Phalura villages. Historically, Khowar originated in
northern Chitral; in 14th century (Israr-ud-Din 1979:4) Khowar
speakers moved south into the southern Chitral area. Today
many neighboring villages are predominantly Khowar-speaking.
Khowar is the dominant lingua franca of the Chitral region.
Kalasha is presently spoken in valleys on the western side of

the Chitral River opposite the valleys where Phalura is spoken.
Before the Kho migrated into the area, Kalasha was also spoken
in many villages on the eastern side of the Chitral River
neighboring the Phalura villages. (See Cacopardo 1990.) In fact,
when Morgenstierne (1941) visited the area in 1929, his
respondents said that Kalkatak was a Kalasha-speaking village.
There are still some people in Kalkatak who speak Kalasha as
their first language. Morgenstierne (1941) showed that Phalura
has been in contact with Kalasha long enough for Phalura to have
picked up some words from Kalasha. Some portion of Kalkatak
is Khowar-speaking.
Several smaller language communities are located near
some of the Phalulo villages, namely speakers of Gujari, Dameli,
Shekhani, Gawar-bati, and Sawi. There are Gujar communities in
the Shishi Koh Valley near Purigal. There are also Gujars living
around Drosh and Nagar on the Chitral River and in the area of
Lowari Pass. Dameli is spoken in the valley immediately south
of Ashret. The Shekhani-speaking community of Badrugal is
located between Kalkatak and Ashret. There is a large
(approximately 5000 people) Afghan refugee camp near
Kalkatak. The refugees are Gawar-bati and Sawi speakers.
Pashto is particularly important in the very southernmost
parts of the Chitral Valley. It was reported that Pashtoons,
looking for summer work, started filtering into the southern
Chitral area in the 1960s. In about 1980 some Pashtoons began
opening shops in the Drosh bazaar. There were a few individual
Pashtoon families living in the southern Chitral Valley before
these dates. Today, there are quite a few Pashto-speaking
shopkeepers in Drosh. The fact that this population of Pashto
speakers is from a fairly recent immigration is supported by
Morgenstierne’s (1932) statement that in 1929 no Pashto was
spoken north of Lowari Pass.
The impact of Pashto on Phalura-speaking villages is
particularly evident in Ashret, the southernmost Phalulo
community. Ziaret, located above Ashret, is Pashto-speaking. A
number of families living in Ashret speak other languages as
their first language including Pashto, Khowar, and Gujari.
10. INTERACTIONS WITH AND USE OF OTHER

LANGUAGES
The frequency of social interaction with speakers of other

languages is both a reason for learning and a means of learning
another language. Respondents from each of the villages reported
that they have daily contact with Khowar speakers. However, the
frequency of reported interactions with Pashto speakers varies
according to the different Phalura villages from which

respondents came. In Ashret, the location farthest south, all of
the respondents said that that they have daily contact with both
Khowar and Pashto speakers. Respondents from the other
villages north of Ashret reported only occasional contact with
Pashtoons.
10.1 Second language use patterns
Use of Khowar is widespread throughout the different

Phalura villages in communication situations involving
individuals from other ethnolinguistic groups. Khowar was
reported as the language most frequently used in Drosh bazaar,
the regional economic center for all the villages. In two Phalura
communities where the village population is ethnolinguistically
mixed, Kalkatak and Ghos, Khowar was reported as the language
frequently used with non-Phalulo neighbors. In the mixed village
of Ashret, Khowar is used with Khowar-speaking neighbors,
while Pashto is used with Pashtoons. For civil functions in the
region, such as contact with local government officials or
policemen, Khowar is widely used. Many Phalulo, especially
men from Biori and Purigal, which are farther up the side
valleys, leave their home village area daily for employment;
Khowar is most frequently used with co-workers, along with
Pashto, which was reported less frequently. Khowar is the
language used most frequently when Phalulo use public
transportation throughout the Chitral region, although Pashto is
used more frequently south of Drosh.
Naturally, Pashto use is more frequent in the southern part

of Chitral Valley where contact with Pashtoons is more common.
Even respondents who evaluated their Pashto proficiency as
poor, those from Ghos and Purigal, reported that they used
Pashto in some contact situations. Pashto is needed to
communicate with the Pashtoon shopkeepers in Drosh bazaar. It
is reportedly used in some employment situations and for contact
with Pashtoon policemen or officials. As mentioned above, it is
commonly used by Ashret Phalulo for interaction with their
Pashtoon neighbors.
Many of the respondents have worked elsewhere in the

country for a season or extended periods; the work periods
mentioned ranged from one month to fourteen years. Peshawar,
Rawalpindi, Lahore, and Karachi were cities commonly
mentioned outside of Chitral where Phalulo men go for work.
The respondents said that they used Pashto in these other places.
Several of the men said that they also used Urdu in some of the
cities they had visited or worked in. Urdu is perceived as the best
language to know for employment outside of the Chitral Valley.
Several respondents noted that women leave their villages

only occasionally, for weddings, funerals, visiting relatives, and
doctor visits. These respondents said that, when outside of their
language areas, some women might be able to use Khowar or
Pashto, but others would require someone to translate for them.
Throughout the minority language groups of southern

Chitral, it was found that the minority language is generally used
in the mosque as long as there are only speakers of that language
present. If other men come into the mosque to participate, the
preaching is in the language of wider communication for that
area, Pashto or Khowar. Respondents from Ashret and Biori said
that Phalura is the language commonly used in the mosque; in
Kalkatak the respondents said Khowar is used. Religion has had
an unusual impact on language use in Kalkatak. The ethnic
Kalasha community of Kalkatak chose to shift to the use of
Phalura when they converted to Islam.
In summary, it appears that Khowar is the second language

used most frequently by Phalulo when interacting with speakers
from other language backgrounds within the Chitral region.
Pashto is also used, particularly in the farthest south village of
Ashret. The reported use of these other languages does not
necessarily imply a high level of proficiency in a wide range of
domains. It is likely that the Phalulo are proficient in domains
where there is interaction between language groups (e.g.,
negotiating in the bazaar), and less proficient in other domains
requiring little or no out-group interaction.
10.2 Language contact through radio
In addition to social interactions with speakers, exposure to

other languages takes place through the broadcast media. There
is no electricity to any of the Phalura villages, so television is not
used. Most of those interviewed in this study have battery-
operated radios and frequently listen to radio programs in their
homes. Respondents from each of the villages reported listening
to radio programs from Peshawar. Among the respondents there
was a fairly equal distribution of interest in Urdu, Pashto, and
Khowar programs. Some of the respondents mentioned that their
wives and children listen to these programs, with varying degrees
of comprehension. The impact of such passive contact on
proficiency in these languages is difficult to evaluate.
10.3 Second language use and acquisition in education
Education is seen, rightly enough, as an avenue toward

better employment, economic gain, and a better life. The
availability of schools and education has increased in the Phalura
villages, and more of the children are receiving some education.
In the schools there can be language acquisition from the other
students, from the teachers, via the medium of instruction, and
through a language taught as a subject. Children in Ashret,
Kalkatak, and Purigal attend school with children who speak a
different first language. Respondents from each of these villages
said that the other children learn to speak Phalura and their
children are learning these other languages, Khowar and Pashto.
According to respondents, there are Phalura-speaking teachers in
all of the schools in the Phalulo villages except Bur Biori. The
children of Purigal go to school in Pursat, a Khowar-speaking
village, and the teachers are Khowar speakers. There are also
Khowar- and Pashto-speaking teachers in the schools in the
Phalulo villages.
Urdu is the prescribed language of education in Pakistan.

The children begin school unfamiliar with Urdu since they have
little, if any, prior exposure to it. In the lower grades the teachers
frequently teach and give explanations in Khowar, or possibly in
Phalura if the teacher is a Phalura speaker, until the children

begin to learn and understand Urdu. According to the
respondents, only in the Muz Biori, and possibly Kalkatak,
primary schools do the teachers use much Phalura as a medium
of instruction. English is taught as a subject in secondary schools
and becomes more important for the few who attain higher levels
of education.
It is evident in discussion of interactions between Phalulo

and their neighbors, that many members of the Phalura-speaking
community speak more than one language. Most of those
interviewed said that they speak at least three languages other
than Phalura. Nearly all of the respondents listed Khowar as the
second language in which they are most proficient. Most of the
respondents said that they also had some ability in Pashto. More
than half of the respondents said that they could speak some
Urdu. Five said that they could speak some English. The other
languages mentioned, by one respondent each, were Farsi,
Panjabi, Hindko, and Kalasha.
The respondents from Ashret said that Pashto was their best
second language. The Pashtoon co-workers, who conducted the
interviews in Pashto, gave the opinion that these respondents did
have very good ability in Pashto. In contrast, all of the
respondents from Biori said that Khowar was their best second
language, but some said that they speak Pashto with equal
proficiency. The co-workers felt that these respondents generally
had poor ability in Pashto. Respondents from Kalkatak, Ghos,
and Purigal said that Khowar was their best second language.9
Interviews in Kalkatak were conducted in a mixture of Pashto
and Urdu, which worked satisfactorily. The interviews in Purigal,
and with the Ghos respondents, were conducted with some
9
There was not a Khowar-speaking co-worker involved in this study
during the Phalura portion of this survey, so no comment on the Khowar second
language proficiency of the respondents can be made.
difficulty because of the respondents’ lack of ability in any

language other than Phalura or Khowar.
It was not possible to interview Phalura-speaking women as
a part of this study, nor were any men younger than nineteen
years old interviewed. Some information on these groups within
the Phalulo community was gathered by asking respondents for
their opinions regarding the bilingual ability of their family
members. Many of the respondents said that their children had at
least some second language proficiency in Khowar. Four of the
respondents from Ashret said that Pashto was their children’s
second language. A few of the respondents from Kalkatak and
Biori also mentioned Pashto as a language in which their
children had some proficiency. Two men from Kalkatak and
another from Biori said that their children do not speak Phalura
at all, they speak Khowar. One respondent from Ghos said that
his children speak mostly Khowar but they know Phalura. Two
respondents from Ashret and two from Biori said that their
children speak only Phalura.
Second language proficiency among Phalulo women

appears to pattern similarly to that among men, although it is
likely that theirs’ are lower levels of proficiency than those
displayed by the men. At least some proficiency in Khowar was
reported for some women in each of the Phalura villages.
Khowar proficiency among women may be most widespread in
Ghos, where one respondent reported that all Phalulo women
there know Khowar. Following the expectations that Pashto
proficiency among women would be highest in the farthest
southern village of Ashret, a respondent reported that most of the
women there can speak Pashto, while only some can speak
Khowar. In contrast, only a few women in Biori were reported to
speak any Pashto.
Aside from those respondents whose mothers came from

different language groups, few respondents reported that their
parents could speak other languages. Only in Biori did any of the
respondents’ mothers have reported proficiency in another
language. Several of these mothers could speak Khowar; a few of
them could also speak at least a little Pashto. Several respondents
from Biori and Kalkatak reported that their fathers spoke

Khowar, but only a few of their fathers could speak any Pashto.
Therefore, it appears that the Phalura-speaking community
has become increasingly multilingual over time. Pashto currently
has prominence as a second language in Ashret. In Ghos and
Purigal, Khowar is the primary second language. In Kalkatak and
Biori, Khowar is the more prominent second language, but
Pashto is useful to some people as a second language. These
generalities are also found amongst women and children.
12. MARRIAGE CUSTOMS AND LANGUAGE CHOICE
The language chosen for in-home communication between

family members can be an indication of the amount of contact
with, and the level of prestige of a second language. The choice
of taking a wife from another language group is one way in
which language choice decisions are brought into the home.
Several respondents had Khowar-speaking wives and one had a
Pashto-speaking wife. Other respondents confirmed that Phalulo
intermarriage with Pashto and Khowar speakers occurs
frequently. One respondent said that it is the educated Phalura-
speaking men who tend to marry educated Khowar-speaking
women.
Those respondents who have Khowar-speaking wives, said

that in their homes they use some Khowar and some Phalura.
Two of them emphasized that their wives are learning Phalura.
One respondent from Kalkatak has a Pashto-speaking wife; they
do not use Phalura in their home. Several respondents reported
that their wives frequently speak Khowar in their homes.
A few of the respondents had Khowar- or Pashto-speaking

mothers. This demonstrates that even though there is
intermarriage with speakers of other languages, it does not
necessarily mean that the other language will dominate in the
new family situation. Many of the respondents said that in these
mixed-language marriages the wife learns the language of the
husband.
However, several respondents in Ghos and Kalkatak

reported that intermarriage with Khowar-speaking women is
becoming more prevalent in their villages and that marriages
with Khowar-speaking women are becoming preferred for the
purpose of changing the family language to Khowar. Only a few
of the respondents felt that marriage with Phalura speakers is
preferred over marriage with Khowar speakers. The respondents
explained that the parents want to give the children better
opportunity for education by making the children’s first language
Khowar. This is important because most of the teachers are
Khowar speakers and do not speak Phalura.
In contrast to families in the past in which the parents’

bilingualism did not significantly impact the language of the
home or children, there appear to be indications of a change in
the attitudes of parents toward the language they pass on to their
children. This change is revealed in the reports of Phalulo
children who speak Khowar as their first language, and in the
attitudes expressed by the younger respondents who want their
children to be Khowar speakers.
13. ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHER LANGUAGES
People’s attitudes toward other languages can give some

indication of resistance to the use of those languages or the desire
to shift to another language. A number of situations have been
mentioned in which members of the Phalura community are
using a second language. There seems to be a willingness to
learn Khowar and, for some people, Pashto. This can be
contrasted with the lack of interest in learning other neighboring
minority languages, for example, Gujari. One young man who
was interviewed in this study felt that he had no future use for
Phalura. He said that he would prefer to have a Khowar-speaking
wife so that his children would speak Khowar. He also said that
he would encourage the use of Urdu and not use Phalura in his
home when he has his own family. What he will actually do in
the future could be different, but his attitude at present shows a
lack of interest in maintaining his language. It also illustrates that
he feels there is value in the knowledge and use of Khowar and
Urdu. His explicit negative attitudes toward the maintenance of

Phalura fits in with the evidence discussed previously, in which
the people of Ghos are reported to be purposefully trying to shift
to Khowar.
Two negative comments concerning other language groups

could be interpreted as supporting the maintenance of a separate
ethnolinguistic identity among the Phalulo. When asked about
the differences between the Phalura and the Kho, one respondent
said that the Kho are weak but the Phalura are “…strong like the
Pashtoons.” The other comment was that since the refugees
(speaking Gawar-bati, Sawi, and Shekhani) had come to Chitral,
there were all sorts of problems and crimes that were unknown
before. This awareness of each language group’s separateness
could actually provide motivation for maintaining their own
language among some segments of the Phalulo community.
14. USE OF PHALURA BY OTHER LANGUAGE GROUPS
Although the Phalura-speaking community is small

compared to Pashto- and Khowar-speaking groups, it has
influenced pockets of the other language communities
surrounding it. Respondents from Ashret reported that the
Pashto-, Khowar-, and Gujari-speaking children living in the
village learn to speak Phalura as a second language.
It was reported that many of the Phalura speakers in

Kalkatak are ethnically Kalasha. Sometime between 1950 and
1960 the Kalasha in Kalkatak and in Suwir, which is on the west
bank of the Chitral River opposite Kalkatak, converted to Islam.
At that time they decided to stop speaking Kalasha because it
was associated with the beliefs of their former religion. The
people of Suwir took an oath in the mosque to speak only
Khowar from that time forward. The Kalasha of Kalkatak, who
were already living among the Phalura, decided not to make such
a drastic change. They decided that they would not encourage the
future use of Kalasha but would encourage the use of Phalura.
Today the Kalasha older than 30 years are still reported to be
able to speak Kalasha. One respondent said that Kalasha is still
used in nine or ten homes in Kalkatak. Phalura is now the

dominant language in Kalkatak.
Many of the Shekhani speakers of Badrugal were reported

to use Phalura as a second language. The respondents also said
that there is frequent intermarriage between these Shekhani
speakers and Phalura speakers from neighboring villages. One
respondent from Badrugal said that in those homes both
languages are used. The acquisition and use of Phalura by non-
Phalulo in Kalkatak and Badrugal, and to some extent in Ashret,
support the interpretation that Phalura is a regionally dominant
language in those areas.
Interview and questionnaire information based on the

twenty-seven Phalura respondents indicate a diverse picture of
language vitality, although in the present situation continued use
of Phalura is fairly strong. Phalura was most frequently reported
as the language of the home, used with spouses, children, and
elders. Outside of the home, for conversation with neighbors and
co-workers and for public gatherings, respondents in Biori and
Purigal reported that they generally use Phalura. Respondents
from other villages said that they would speak Phalura with other
Phalulo, and that Phalura is used for public gatherings, such as in
the mosque and local political meetings if only Phalulo are
present. Several respondents said that Phalura is important for
use with Phalulo from other villages and helps to maintain their
cultural unity. There are only a few Phalura-speaking teachers in
the schools available to Phalulo children. Respondents reported
that those teachers do use Phalura for teaching the Phalulo
children at the elementary level until the children are able to
make the transition to Urdu. There may be a few monolingual
women and children in Biori, Purigal, and Ashret.
In Kalkatak and Badrugal, Phalura has some of the prestige

of a language of wider communication. Phalulo in Kalkatak are
aware that the ethnic Kalasha who live amongst them have
chosen to switch to Phalura. People in Ashret and Biori know
that the Shekhani in Badrugal speak Phalura as their second

language. This awareness that people from other language groups
learn Phalura may give the Phalulo a feeling of pride in their
language. The fact that these other people find it useful in some
domains indicates that Phalura is a vital language which
dominates communication in those domains. These factors of
widespread use of Phalura in many domains and the acquisition
of Phalura by non-Phalulo point toward strong language vitality.
However, there is also evidence of weakened language

vitality under pressures from Khowar and Pashto. In some of the
villages, questionnaire responses seem to indicate a decrease in
the use of Phalura. Respondents, primarily from Ashret and
Kalkatak, reported that in their villages there is frequent contact
with speakers of other languages and that they generally use that
person’s language. Due to the residence of speakers of other
languages in their villages, most public meetings are held in
Pashto or Khowar. In some homes in these villages there is also
less use of Phalura. Several respondents reported that they use
Khowar as well as Phalura in their homes. A few respondents
from Ashret reported that they occasionally use Pashto in their
homes. Respondents from all of the villages except Purigal noted
that some people from their villages had quit using Phalura. As
noted above, intermarriage with Khowar-speaking wives has led
to the increased use of Khowar in some homes, especially in the
villages of Ghos and Kalkatak. The preference for such
intermarriage, particularly among the more educated, may
threaten the language vitality of Phalura.
As a result of their poor agricultural position and increasing

population, the people of Ghos seem to have become
economically dependent on contact with Drosh and thus more
frequently choose to use Khowar. Historically, lower economic
dependence has been a factor in the maintenance of Phalura in
Purigal, Kalkatak, Biori, and Ashret. Based on growth in
population seen in a comparison of Morgenstierne’s estimates
and today’s estimates and on increased accessibility due to roads
and improved transportation, it would be expected that these
villages have become economically less self-sufficient. Among
those who must travel and work outside of the Phalura villages,
there is naturally an increase in the contact with other languages.
The responses of several respondents indicate that they do

not feel that Phalura will continue to be used in the future. Some
respondents from Biori, Kalkatak, and Ghos said that Khowar
will be the most commonly used language of the next generation.
The four respondents younger than age 25 felt that their children
will not speak Phalura when they become adults. A couple of the
respondents felt that Phalura will be replaced by Khowar, and
they are content with the change.
Phalura is significantly altered by its separation from the

related Shina linguistic varieties. Although there are identifiable
variations in the speech of the different Phalulo villages, they do
not seem to be significant enough to cause problematic loss of
comprehension. Sawi shows considerable lexical differentiation
from Phalura, though it has been referred to as a Phalura dialect.
The expected result of such lexical deviation would be
inadequate intelligibility between speakers of these two
historically related linguistic varieties.
Although many members of the Phalura community have

some proficiency in other languages, there may be monolingual
men in Purigal and monolingual women in Biori and Purigal. It
seems from this study that there are a number of homes in which
there is at least occasional use of a second language in the home.
However, there may also be many homes in Biori, Purigal, and
even Ashret in which the children do not have any significant
contact with a second language for a number of years. Except for
contact with Phalulo from other villages, Phalura speakers must
use some second language when they are out of their villages.
Khowar is the most commonly used second language. In Ashret,
Pashto is also commonly known and used. The emergence of
Pashto as an alternative seems to have occurred in the last 30
years at most.
The picture of language vitality for Phalura is somewhat

mixed. The more isolated communities of Purigal and Biori
evidence the strongest ethnolinguistic vitality and indicate that
Phalura may be maintained, at least for several generations. In
contrast, Ghos may be the least vital community, with Khowar
use becoming more prominent. The ethnically mixed
communities in Ashret and Kalkatak fall somewhere in between
on this continuum, with both Khowar and Pashto use frequent in
certain domains.
96
CHAPTER 5
KALASHA
This chapter investigates the sociolinguistic environment of

Kalasha, with a focus on those people who speak the language
rather than defining the community as those who practice the
traditional Kalasha religion. This study describes a larger
geographic distribution of speakers than has usually been
reported. Through the collection of descriptive linguistic data,
comparisons were made to measure the linguistic divergence of
the varieties of Kalasha.
The general language vitality of the Kalasha-speaking
community is described in this chapter. Evidence considered in
this aspect of the study includes reported language use in various
social domains, intermarriage and language choice, the role of
religion in language maintenance, and contact with more
dominant language groups. Such sociolinguistic data are
evaluated in light of reported levels of multilingual proficiency
and indicators of language attitudes amongst the Kalasha.
Information for this survey was gathered during the
summers of 1989 and 1990. Word lists were collected in: Krakal,
in the Bumboret Valley; Guru, in the Birir Valley; and Zugunuk,
in the Urtsun Valley. Questionnaires and interviews were
conducted with ten men from these aforementioned valleys and
from the Jinjeret Koh Valley, and Suwir. Interviews conducted
while studying neighboring languages have also provided insight
into the sociolinguistic situation of the Kalasha.
The Kalasha live in the Chitral and Drosh Tehsils of the

Chitral District in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan.
They are concentrated in several small valleys on the west side of
Chapter 5 Kalasha 97
the Chitral River south of Chitral town: in the Rumbur and

Bumboret Valleys (above the point where the two valleys meet
west of Ayun), in the Birir Valley, and in the Urtsun Valley. (See
map 4.) A few elderly speakers are reported to remain in the
Jinjeret Koh Valley and in the village of Suwir. There are some
Kalasha speakers in the village of Kalkatak south of Drosh on the
east side of the Chitral River. People who are ethnically Kalasha
live outside of these areas, but they no longer use the Kalasha
language, nor call themselves Kalasha.
3. HISTORY OF STUDY
Leitner (cited in Morgenstierne 1973) first described

Kalasha in 1877. He called the language Bashgali, but according
to Morgenstierne it was, in fact Kalasha. Grierson (LSI VIII.2)
documented his analysis of Kalasha from data collected by a
respondent who was knowledgeable about Kalasha but was not a
mother-tongue speaker. In recent years there have been
numerous studies of Kalasha culture and customs, but few of the
language. An exception is Morgenstierne’s work of 1973, which
clarified earlier writings on the language. Other recent linguistic
research has been conducted by Bashir, and by R. Trail.
Nothing is known about the origin of the name Kalasha.

The people are sometimes called kafir or Kalash Kafir. Kafir is
an Islamic term meaning unbeliever. The language is called
Kalasha or Kalashamon and the country Kalasha-desh. Kalasha
speakers in the Urtsun Valley sometimes call their language
Urtsuniwar. The neighboring Chitralis call the language
Kalashwar. Kalasha speakers who have converted to Islam are
no longer considered Kalasha. The Kalasha interviewed in this
study call them Shektiao.
4.2 History
The Kalasha have a tradition that they originally came from

a place called Tsyam. G. Trail (1990) believes that Tsyam is
Syria and that the Kalasha represent the remnant of a Seleucid
colony. Morgenstierne (1973:189) reported that according to
their own traditions the Kalasha came from Tsyam, located
somewhere to the south of their present location. From there they
moved into the Chitral area from the Waigal area in present-day
Nuristan in Afghanistan. The people of Waigal, who also call
themselves KalaS7 a-ala (Strand 1973:299), support this with a
tradition of their own; they say they migrated into the Waigal
Valley from settlements in the south, near present-day Jalalabad,
and that some of them continued farther north, settling in Chitral
(Edelberg and Jones 1979). Yet another Kalasha tradition,
reported by Schomberg (1938) is that the Birir people originally
came from Manjam, a plateau in the Bashgal Valley. Prior to the
14th century the Kalasha are thought to have inhabited southern
Chitral all the way to Reshun or Mastuj in the northeast (see map
2) and the Lutkuh Valley in the northwest. Israr-ud-Din (1969)
reports that the Kalasha ruled southern Chitral for three hundred
years. In 1320 A. D. (Israr-ud-Din 1979), the Kalasha were
invaded by Rais Mehtars (Khowar speakers). They retreated into
the few southern valleys they presently occupy. Many of the
villages of southern Chitral still retain their Kalasha names (e.g.,
Drosh, Ghairet, Jinjeret).
According to Israr-ud-Din (1969:49) the Kalasha were not

displaced by Rais Mehtars; rather, they came under political or
religious influence and eventually accepted Islam and became
Khowar speakers. Many Khowar speakers south of Reshun are
reported to be ethnically Kalasha. Chitrali respondents reported
that the Khowar spoken in the southern half of Chitral is not
pure; it has been influenced by Kalasha.
This shift of language and religion is still happening today.

One man from the Shishi Koh Valley said that his grandfather
spoke Kalasha, but he and his father had never learned it; they
speak Khowar now. Cacopardo (1990) reports that the Kalasha in
the Shishi Koh Valley were Islamized between 1860 and 1890. It
is probable that the language shift happened later. The Kalasha in

Suwir and the Jinjeret Koh Valley converted to Islam in about
1960. At that time the Suwir residents all took an oath to stop
speaking Kalasha, which they associated with their former
traditional beliefs, and to speak only Khowar. A respondent
interviewed for this study reported that children younger than
fifteen years in the Jinjeret Koh Valley are not very familiar with
Kalasha. In Kalkatak, the Kalasha who have converted to Islam
are switching to Phalura; Kalasha is still spoken, but the young
people are learning primarily Phalura and possibly Khowar.
Interestingly, the Kalasha speakers of the Urtsun Valley have all
converted to Islam but continue to use Kalasha as their first
language.
Chart 1 lists the Kalasha population given by Captain B. E.

M. Gurdon in 1904 (cited in Morgenstierne 1973). Gurdon wrote
that for the first three valleys, these figures represent no more
than 3000 people. That would give an average family size of 23
people, which seems rather high.
Siiger (1956) estimated the entire Kalasha population at
3000 to 4000 in 1950. Graziosi (cited in Morgenstierne 1973)
gave a 1955 estimate of 2000 Kalasha speakers and a 1960
estimate of 1391 Kalasha speakers plus 2230 ethnic Kalasha who
had converted to Islam.
Chart 1
Population of Kalasha families by village from Gurdon (1904),
cited in Morgenstierne (1973:187)
Rumbur Valley 20 families
Bumboret Valley 59 "
Birir Valley 48 " (=401 persons)
Jinjeret Kuh 3 "
Suwir 26 "
Urtsun (20-some Bashgali fam.) 15 "
Kalkatak 16 "
Lawai 27 "
TOTAL 214 families
Chart 2 lists the Chitral District Council’s 1987 population

figures for Rumbur, Bumboret, and Birir Valleys. There are
some Khowar speakers included in these counts.1
Chart 2
Population in three Kalasha Valleys according to Chitral District
Council 1987
Rumbur Valley: 656 individuals
Bumboret Valley:
Krakal 291 "
Batrick 230 "
Brone 792 "
Pahlawanan Deh 617 "
Kalashanan Deh 617 "
Paraklak 309 "
SUBTOTAL 2866 "
Birir Valley: 1178 "
TOTAL 4689 individuals
1
These figures may be incomplete; lack of familiarity with some village
names impeded confirmation of these figures.
Respondents in this study gave the following estimates for

Kalasha speakers in their villages and valleys:
Bumboret Valley: 200 to 300 homes; Krakal: 45 homes, 15 of

these homes have converted to Islam and may be switching to
Khowar.
Birir Valley: 1000 traditional Kalasha and 1000 who have

converted to Islam but are still speaking Kalasha.
Jinjeret Koh Valley: 80 families; 200 individuals, all of whom

are converts to Islam, few of them are still speaking Kalasha.
Urtsun Valley: 200 families; 800 individuals, all of whom are

converts to Islam and are still speaking Kalasha.
Suwir: a few old people remember Kalasha, but it is no longer

used there.
Kalkatak: about 10 families still use Kalasha sometimes in their

homes.
From all these figures a population range of 2900 to 5700

speakers of Kalasha can be estimated.2
5.2 Agriculture and economics
The Kalasha are almost exclusively farmers and

goatherders. Their valleys are fertile, and they grow a variety of
crops plus nut trees, especially walnuts. Barley, wheat, and rice
are the common grain crops. In the lower half of the Bumboret
Valley, the Kalasha are able to grow two crops each year. A
plant nursery in the Bumboret Valley, managed by the
2
It is probable that an estimate of 4500 to 5000 Kalasha speakers is close
to accurate. Others have presented population figures that show a dramatic
decrease in the size of the Kalasha-speaking population. The difference may be
that the present counting includes Kalasha speakers even if they have converted
to Islam. It seems that the population figures given by other researchers within
the last 100 years refer only to those Kalasha who follow the traditional
religion.
government, supplies vegetable plants and fruit trees and teaches

the people new and better agricultural practices.
There are good forests for timber harvesting in the Kalasha
valleys; however, legal problems have arisen between the
Kalasha and neighboring Chitralis over the ownership of the
forests and lumbering rights. Government officials have called
for a ban on lumbering (Lines 1990) to protect the environment.
Many tourists from around the world visit Chitral District
each year to observe the unique Kalasha culture. They hire jeeps
to travel to the Kalasha valleys; some of the drivers are Kalasha.
There are now a few shops, hotels, and rest houses in the Kalasha
valleys. A few hotels are run by Kalasha. The tourists stay in the
hotels, buy food, and may purchase souvenirs such as native
dresses or headdresses made by the Kalasha women. Most of the
businesses are run by non-Kalasha.
The Chitral District government regulates permits and

collects a fee from tourists visiting the Kalasha area. There is a
police post at the entrance to the Bumboret and Rumbur Valleys
and one farther up the Bumboret Valley. These police watch over
tourists, monitor traffic over a nearby pass into Afghanistan, and
maintain peace in the area.
The Kalasha practice the last animistic religion left in
Central Asia. The people of nearby Nuristan had similar religious
beliefs and practices up until the 1890s, when there was
conversion to Islam in Afghanistan. (Israr-ud-Din 1969:51. See
also Jones 1974.) All the Kalasha in the Urtsun Valley, as well as
some in the other valleys, have converted to Islam. Historically,
as Kalasha communities have converted to Islam, many have
shifted from using their mother tongue.
There are several primary schools in the Bumboret and

Rumbur Valleys; there is also one in the Birir Valley and one in
Urtsun. There is a high school in the Bumboret Valley. In the fall

of 1989, the government granted permission for Kalasha to be
used as the medium of instruction in new Kalasha-staffed
schools. Krakal, in the Bumboret Valley, has the first such
school. Some Kalasha have sent their children to schools in
Rawalpindi and Mardan. According to the respondents, fewer
than half of the boys are being educated and very few girls go to
school.3
5.5 Development organizations
The Agha Khan Rural Support Program has executed a few

bridge and irrigation projects in the Kalasha valleys. Other aid
organizations have built a small hydroelectric power station that
supplies electricity at night for Krakal and have provided a
system for piping fresh spring water to Krakal. The government
has sponsored many projects for the Kalasha, including clean
sources of drinking water, flood control, irrigation, schools, and
training of women health workers and midwives. There are
government health clinics in the Bumboret, Rumbur, and Birir
Valleys.
Fussman (1972) has described Kalasha as a member of the

Chitral or Western sub-branch of the Dardic branch of the Indo-
Aryan (Indic) language group. Khowar is the only other language
in the Chitral sub-branch. There is no report of intelligibility
between these two languages. According to Morgenstierne
(1973), it is possible to reconstruct common Kalasha-Khowar
forms of words, and there are similarities in the grammars of the
two languages. Before Morgenstierne’s investigations into
Kalasha, Grierson (LSI VIII.2) included Kalasha with the other
Kafir (now called Nuristani) languages (Strand 1973), such as
the Kati languages, in the Iranian language group.
3
A case was reported of a young Kalasha girl who went to a nearby
government school. She endured much ridicule due to her different dress; she
was greatly embarrassed and quit going to that school.
7. REPORTED LINGUISTIC VARIATION OF KALASHA
Kalasha respondents interviewed in this study had clear

perceptions of different varieties of Kalasha. There is general
consensus that the speech of Rumbur and Bumboret Valleys is
similar, and can be considered a northern variety. An elderly
respondent in Suwir identified two other perceived varieties of
Kalasha spoken to the west of the Chitral River: a central variety
spoken in the Birir and Jinjeret Koh Valleys and a southern
variety spoken in Suwir and the Urtsun Valley.4
Morgenstierne (1973) and R. Trail (1989) agree with the
perception of the respondents that the speech of the Bumboret
and Rumbur Valleys is similar. Morgenstierne found no evidence
that the speech of the Birir Valley was any different than that of
the Bumboret and Rumbur Valleys, but his language helper from
the Rumbur Valley said he had difficulty understanding the
speech of the Birir Valley. A female Kalasha respondent from
the Birir Valley, who is now married and living in the Bumboret
Valley, said that there was much difference between the speech
of the two valleys.
A standard list of 210 words was collected from Kalasha-

speaking respondents in Krakal in the Bumboret Valley, Guru in
the Birir Valley, and Zugunuk in the Urtsun Valley.5 The word
lists were also checked with Morgenstierne’s (1973) Rumbur and
Urtsun Valley word lists, although Morgenstierne collected very
few words from the Urtsun Valley. Each word list was compared
with all others, pair by pair, in order to determine the extent to
which the corresponding lexical items are similar. In this
4
A respondent in the Urtsun Valley said that the Kalasha spoken in
Kalkatak is different from his speech. The Kalasha spoken in Kalkatak, and
what used to be spoken more widely on the eastern side of the Chitral River,
may have represented a fourth variety. However, a word list was not collected
in Kalkatak, so this has not been investigated.
5
R. Trail assisted with the collection of the Bumboret and Urtsun Valley
word lists. He also checked the word lists for any obvious errors. The complete
Bumboret, Birir, and Urtsun word lists are included in appendix B.
procedure6 no attempt is made to identify true cognates based on

consistent sound correspondences. Rather, the items are
compared only for obvious phonetic similarity. The motivation
behind a count based on phonetic similarity is that such
comparisons aim to indicate how much speakers from different
locations might understand each other. A lexical similarity
comparison is represented in chart 3 with the percentage of
words considered similar between each of the locations.
Chart 3
Bumboret
89 Birir
76 74 Urtsun
Birir has a greater lexical similarity percentage with

Bumboret than with Urtsun. However, the difference between
Birir and Bumboret may be enough to cause some
comprehension difficulties between speakers from these two
valleys. The difference between the lexical similarity percentages
of Urtsun and the other two valleys is rather large and would
probably cause greater comprehension problems between
speakers from these locations.
The lexical similarity percentages tend to confirm the
perceptions of different speech varieties as identified by the
respondents. Tentatively, the speech of the three northern valleys
will be referred to as the northern variety. The Kalasha of the
Urtsun Valley will be considered a southern variety. Further
research should be done to more clearly identify the varieties of
Kalasha.
6
7.2 Comprehension between linguistic varieties
A short text7 in the Bumboret Valley speech variety was

recorded and was played for a man in the Urtsun Valley in order
to gather preliminary evidence of the potential for intelligibility
between the northern and southern varieties of Kalasha. After the
Urtsun Valley man listened to the text, he was asked to retell the
story in his own words. The Bumboret man who had originally
told the story was present. As the Urtsun subject retold the story,
the original storyteller repeatedly interrupted him to correct
errors in details of the story. The Bumboret Valley man reported
that he had difficulty understanding everything the Urtsun Valley
Kalasha speakers said to him, even though he knows these men
and has visited them once or twice before. These reports seem to
indicate some general understanding between northern and
southern Kalasha speakers, mixed with significant
comprehension loss.
8. INTERACTION WITH NEIGHBORING LANGUAGES
The Kalasha-speaking community is surrounded by several

other language groups. The frequency of contact between
language groups may be an indication of the amount of influence
the languages exert upon one another. To the east of the area
where the northern variety is spoken, Khowar is the predominant
language. Khowar speakers have been moving into the Bumboret
Valley. The Kalasha there say they have daily contact with
Khowar speakers.
There is quite a bit of contact between the people living in
the Eastern Kativiri-speaking village, Shekhanan Deh, in the
upper Bumboret Valley, and the highest Kalasha village, Krakal.
During this study Eastern Kativiri speakers were observed daily,
moving up and down the Bumboret Valley, passing through the
Kalasha villages, and occasionally conversing with the villagers.
Another Eastern Kativiri-speaking village, Kunisht, is reported to
be located at the upper end of the Rumbur Valley. It can be
7
The Kalasha text is included in appendix C.5.
assumed that there may be a similar amount of contact between

this village and the Kalasha villages in that valley.
A few families of Gujari speakers live in the Bumboret

Valley; they do goatherding for the Kalasha and are reported to
learn to speak Kalasha. There was no report of any Kalasha who
speak Gujari, although there are reports that a few can
understand it. The Bumboret Valley respondents noted that
tourists from all over the world come to their valley, and the
ability to communicate with them, usually in English, is
important, although only a few are able to speak any English.
Only a few Khowar-speaking families live in the Birir

Valley. In Kalkatak, the few Kalasha-speaking families are
surrounded by Phalura and Khowar speakers.
The area in which the southern variety is spoken is

surrounded by a greater mixture of languages. There are Pashto,
Khowar, Eastern Kativiri, and possibly Kamviri speakers living
in the Urtsun Valley. The Pashto speakers live separately, but the
others live as neighbors with the Kalasha. Just south of the
Urtsun Valley are villages of Gujari, Shekhani, and Dameli
speakers. The Urtsun Valley respondents said they have daily
contact with speakers of all the languages surrounding them.
9. SECOND LANGUAGE USE PATTERNS
9.1 Language use in business and civil affairs
A couple of small shops in the Bumboret and Rumbur

Valleys are run by Kalasha speakers, but most are run by
Khowar speakers. It was reported that the Khowar-speaking
shopkeepers can speak some Kalasha. The fact that some
shopping can be done within the valleys in Kalasha decreases
contact with Khowar. Shopping outside of the northern valleys is
done in Ayun or Chitral town. The Kalasha in the southern area
shop in Drosh. All of the respondents said that they speak
Khowar with market traders outside of the Kalasha valleys.
Language choice in civil situations is generally determined

by the outside party. In the Bumboret Valley, a government
official visiting the valley will speak his own language. The
official’s comments will have to be interpreted unless his
language is Khowar. Some of the police in Chitral District come
from the Panjab Province and do not speak any local language;
others are Pashto speakers. Some policemen who work in the
Kalasha valleys have learned some Kalasha. Generally, though,
Khowar is spoken with policemen, and in the Urtsun Valley,
Pashto instead of Khowar.
Language choice in work and job-related situations depends
largely on where the work is. Respondents in the Birir and
Bumboret Valleys, who generally work only in their own valley,
said that Kalasha is the language of their workplaces.
Respondents in the Jinjeret Koh and Urtsun Valley said they
speak Khowar with their co-workers. If an individual leaves his
valley, he has to use a language other than Kalasha. The
respondents said that few Kalasha ever travel outside of the
Chitral District. The most popular outside destinations for short-
term work are Peshawar and Islamabad. Kalasha who go to these
or other cities are reported to learn the language there, usually
Pashto or Urdu.
9.2 Education and language use choices
According to the respondents, there are two Kalasha-

speaking teachers at the primary school in Krakal and one at a
private school in the Rumbur Valley. Although information
about the language use of teachers in the Birir Valley was not
obtained, it would seem that they must, at least sometimes, use
Kalasha, as the children of that valley more often tend to be
monolingual. All the other teachers in Kalasha village schools
are Khowar speakers. Respondents reported that instruction is in
Khowar and Urdu. Kalasha children also learn Khowar from
their classmates. It was reported that most students in the
Kalasha valley schools speak Khowar. The respondent from the
Jinjeret Koh Valley said that the children are not allowed to use
Kalasha in schools there.
9.3 Marriage patterns and language use choices
Marriage patterns among the Kalasha are largely

conditioned by religion. They prefer marriages within their own
religious group. In marriages between Kalasha speakers, Kalasha
is maintained as the language of the home. This is frequently true
even if the couple have converted to Islam. The Muslims of the
neighboring language groups prefer that the women from their
communities marry Muslim men. It was reported that there have
been cases of Kalasha women being given as wives to Muslim
men, necessitating the conversion of the bride to Islam. Some
Kalasha converts to Islam marry Eastern Kativiri, Pashto, and
Khowar speakers. Three of the respondents had Eastern Kativiri-
speaking relatives, and one of the men from the Urtsun Valley
had a Khowar-speaking mother and another relative who is a
Pashto speaker. Frequently intermarriage, in conjunction with
religious conversion, results in a shift away from the use of
Kalasha in those homes.
9.4 Religion and language use choices
As previously discussed in several places, the choice of

religion has had a significant effect on the Kalasha language
community. Several communities which have converted to Islam
have ceased using Kalasha over time. As a community, the
people of Suwir and the Jinjeret Koh Valley have chosen not to
maintain their ethnic language for religious reasons. Considering
the strong link between religion and language felt by traditional
Kalasha, as well as those who have converted, it is not surprising
that the Kalasha continue to use Kalasha for religious purposes
and that those who have converted to Islam use Khowar for
religious purposes.
Speaking Kalasha is an integral part of the Kalasha identity

in the northern valleys, although it is not as important as
participation in religious beliefs and festivals. Although
historically communities have tended to shift from Kalasha after
converting to Islam, some individual families in the Bumboret
Valley who have converted still speak Kalasha. Formerly,
converts to Islam were expelled from the Kalasha villages.

Presently, they are not allowed to attend the religious festivals.
All of the Kalasha speakers in the Urtsun Valley have converted
to Islam. The traditional Kalasha festivals are no longer observed
in that valley. For the traditional Kalasha, giving up their
language is equated with becoming a Muslim.
9.5 Indications of increased language use choices
The respondents reported that their fathers spoke the same

second languages they do, and that their mothers spoke some
Khowar (except in the Birir Valley, where the women are
reported to be monolingual). Respondents from the Urtsun
Valley said that their children speak Kalasha and Khowar with
equal fluency. One respondent from the Urtsun Valley said that
the children today use other languages more than he did when he
was a child. The present adult and younger generations in the
Bumboret and Birir Valleys do not appear to be any more
bilingual than the oldest generation.
10. REPORTED SECOND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
Respondents from all the areas said that Khowar is their best
second language; however, those from the Birir Valley said they
could speak only a little Khowar. In the Bumboret and Urtsun
Valleys, respondents said they also could speak Eastern Kativiri
and Pashto. Three respondents said they could also speak Kamik,
the Kalasha name for Kamviri. Only the respondents with at least
several years of education could speak any Urdu. The few men
who have some ability in Pashto, Urdu, and English are those
who have spent some time in Peshawar or Islamabad. They are in
great demand for communication with tourists in the northern
Kalasha valleys.
Respondents were not tested on their second language
proficiency. A Khowar speaker commented that Kalasha
speakers could not speak Khowar very well. It is a safe
assumption that there is a wide range of bilingual abilities among
the Kalasha-speaking community. The men in the Birir Valley
said they know very little Khowar. The women and children of
this valley are said to be monolingual. A respondent from the
Urtsun Valley said that the men there speak better Khowar than
the women. A respondent in the Bumboret Valley said that the
women there can speak Khowar satisfactorily. A respondent told
of three young ladies from the Bumboret Valley attending
midwifery school in Chitral town; apparently, one was not doing
well because of her limited Khowar ability. According to one
respondent, the children in the Bumboret Valley learn Khowar
by the time they are seven to ten years old. This would suggest
that there is significant contact with Khowar speakers, even for
children.
11. ATTITUDES TOWARD THEIR OWN LANGUAGE
The Kalasha in the Bumboret and Birir Valleys seem to be

proud of their language. A man in the Bumboret Valley was
asked if he could ever remember being embarrassed to be heard
speaking his language. He said, “No, I am proud of my
language.” The headman of the valley was present and said,
“Why should we be ashamed of our language? We were the
rulers of the area.”
During data collection in the Urtsun Valley, the Bumboret
Valley Kalasha assistant showed no apprehension about speaking
Kalasha publicly in order that he might identify those who
understood any Kalasha. In contrast, while in Drosh during that
trip, two young men who had been identified as Kalasha speakers
from the Urtsun Valley would not agree to participate in this
study and were obviously ashamed at being identified as Kalasha
speakers in a public place. During the data collection in
Kalkatak, it was reported that only a few speak Kalasha or that
some of the people knew it but they no longer use it. Possibly
these reports are more an indication of low esteem on the part of
local Kalasha speakers than a true reflection of how many people
still speak Kalasha in their homes.
The Kalasha respondents in the northern valleys felt that the
loss of their language or a decrease in its usage would be bad.
Some of the respondents who had converted to Islam felt that it
was not necessary to stop using Kalasha. The older respondents

from the Jinjeret Koh Valley and Suwir both expressed that it
was not good that they had quit using Kalasha. The only negative
comments about the use of Kalasha were from young men in
Suwir and Kalkatak who had grown up using Khowar and whose
parents had converted to Islam. These young men felt that it was
good to leave the language behind.
In the Kalasha villages of the Birir, Bumboret, and Rumbur

Valleys, Kalasha is the predominant language of the home and
village. Another language may be used within the village when
talking to non-Kalasha outsiders. Kalasha was frequently
reported as the language used for conversations with neighbors
and co-workers. Kalasha is used for communication with
Kalasha from other villages in their valley and is considered
important for maintaining cultural unity.
In Krakal, Kalasha is being used for education in the
primary school. In recent years a script has been developed for
writing Kalasha. A few shops in the Bumboret Valley are run by
Kalasha speakers. Kalasha is used for religious teaching. The
tradition of the Kalasha in the northern valleys is that they may
marry only non-Muslim Kalasha speakers. There have been some
marriages with speakers of other languages, but this results in the
loss of Kalasha identity, according to the respondents. Even
among individual families who have converted, if both parents
are Kalasha speakers, Kalasha is sometimes maintained as the
language of the home. It was reported that some men in the
Bumboret Valley, who are more proficient in Khowar,
sometimes prefer to speak in it; they say they can speak faster in
Khowar.
The Birir Valley seems to be the most monolingual of the
Kalasha valleys. There are reportedly only three Khowar-
speaking families in the valley and they have learned Kalasha for
conversation with the Birir Valley Kalasha. Kalasha children
there do not learn any other language. The Birir Valley
respondents reported that they rarely have contact with speakers
of other languages; few of the men learn much of any other

language.
Although they have retained their language even after

converting to Islam, the Kalasha in the Urtsun Valley did not
indicate a strong desire to continue speaking Kalasha. Kalasha is
still the common language of the home, but is seen as useful only
for conversation with other Kalasha speakers within the village.
One respondent from the Urtsun Valley said he would prefer that
his children marry Khowar speakers and shift to the use of
Khowar.
Kalasha is spoken mainly in several small valleys on the

west side of the Chitral River in southern Chitral. There is a
fairly long history of study into this interesting language and
culture. At least two varieties of Kalasha are spoken today: a
northern and a southern. There may have been more dialects in
the past when the language was spoken over a wider area.
Historically, the size of the language community has been greatly
reduced, but it is difficult to say whether the language group has
decreased or increased in the recent past.
Khowar is the most common second language among the

Kalasha. In the Birir Valley, there does not seem to be much
contact with Khowar speakers, and therefore there is little need
to know Khowar. In the Bumboret and Urtsun Valleys, women
and children, as well as men, have sufficient contact with
Khowar speakers and are reported to have learned to speak
Khowar proficiently. In the Urtsun Valley, Pashto is another
useful language. The fact that the people are generally involved
in subsistence agriculture and herding means that few have been
forced to learn other languages to survive in the marketplace.
The fact that education is becoming more available will

bring a greater awareness of Urdu and Khowar to the
community. The development of literacy materials in Kalasha
could encourage the use of the language, help to educate the
children, and promote the community’s esteem of the language.
Over the years the Kalasha have been under social and economic
pressure to convert to Islam; conversion has often meant giving
up their language.
In the Rumbur, Bumboret, and Birir Valleys, Kalasha is the

main language of the home and community. In the Birir Valley,
there are many monolingual women and children. The language
is also used in Kalkatak and the Jinjeret Koh but perhaps not as
actively.
The traditional Kalasha have positive attitudes toward their

language. Those who speak Kalasha in the Urtsun Valley do not
indicate strong positive attitudes toward the language. In
consideration of the historical trend of a decline in population
and prestige of Kalasha, there is reason for concern for the
vitality of the language. However, with language development,
the Kalasha may retain positive attitudes and maintain the use of
their language. A change in the out-group attitudes towards the
Kalasha may decrease pressure on them and help to establish a
position of relative stability in the vitality of the language
community.
115
CHAPTER 6
DAMELI
This chapter examines some general aspects of the

sociolinguistic environment of the Dameli-speaking community
in southern Chitral. The primary purpose of this chapter is to
examine evidences of the language vitality of Dameli. Other
objectives include the investigation of language variation,
multilingual proficiency, language use patterns, and language
attitudes. Information for this study into Dameli was gathered
during several brief trips in southern Chitral in the summers of
1989 and 1990. A word list was collected, questionnaires were
administered, and interviews were conducted with eight
respondents from Aspar, Dondideri, Shintero, and Swato in the
Damel Valley.
Early in the 1900s Captain B.E.M. Gurdon (cited in

Morgenstierne 1942) mentioned a language called Damerbasha
spoken by a small group of people living in a village called
Daman.1 Morgenstierne (1942) identified this language as
Dameli. He said that this language is spoken in several isolated
villages in a side valley on the east side of the Chitral River a
few miles below Mirkhani in Arandu Tehsil, Chitral District.
The Damel Valley is situated between Drosh and Arandu

(see map 4), about 20 kilometers south of Drosh. Morgenstierne
mentioned three villages in the Damel Valley: Panagram,
Harigram, and Kuru. The respondents involved in this present
study identified eleven villages in the valley. From bottom to top
1
There is a village called Daman across the border in Afghanistan, but
there is no information on the language spoken there.
they are: Damel Nisar, Birao, Swato, Shintero, Karagram,

Dondideri, Zarimbag, Aspar, Lechigram, Pushotan, and Kamsai.
None of the village names are the same as those identified by
Morgenstierne, although Karagram may be Morgenstierne’s
Kuru.
There may be some Dameli families living elsewhere.

Strand (cited in Fussman 1972:23) said that there are several
Dameli families in Gawardesh (see map 4), which is located in a
side valley in Afghanistan northwest of Arandu and parallel to
the Chitral River. Morgenstierne (1942:118) said that some
Dameli intermarried with the people of Kamdesh, which is in the
lower Bashgal River area near Gawardesh; this could explain
their presence in Afghanistan. Several respondents involved in
this study reported that the Dameli still intermarry and have
contact with Shekhani people, which is what people who came
from Kamdesh are called. None of these respondents mentioned
Dameli families living in Afghanistan. There were several
Dameli men working in Peshawar during the time of this study.
Phalura-speaking respondents from Ashret said that there are one
or two Dameli-speaking families living in Ashret.
3. HISTORY OF STUDY
The only previous study was Morgenstierne’s visit to

Chitral in 1929, described in his 1942 article, Notes on Dameli.
His research was based on interviews with two men. He did not
visit the Damel Valley.
Morgenstierne (1942:116) said that the people call their

language Damia-baS7a or DamE3Di. Respondents interviewed for
this study were familiar with the names Dameli, Damia-baS7a or
Chapter 6 Dameli 117
Damya for the language, but they usually called it GVDoji2 or

GVDojo. Local Khowar speakers used GVDoji or Dameli for the
language of the Dameli. This study will use the name Dameli to
refer to both the language and people because it is a term widely
used in the literature and is acceptable to the Dameli themselves.
4.2 History
The history of the Dameli is uncertain. According to a

tradition reported by Captain Gurdon (cited in Morgenstierne
1942:115), the original habitation of the Dameli was Gabar in
Swat. According to Fussman (1972:23), they were expelled from
there around the middle of the 15th century by the Pashtoons.
This is similar to the tradition reported by Morgenstierne
(1942:118), that the Gawar of Arandu came from Bajaur in the
15th century. (See map 3.) Israr-ud-Din (1969:54) relates that the
Jashi, a tribe who inhabited the Bashgal area before the arrival of
the present inhabitants, may have been the forefathers of some of
the Dameli who came from Afghanistan. He says that the Dameli
claim to have originated from two groups: the Shintari and the
Swati, or Afghans, and he implies that the Jashi and the Shintari
are the same group. Israr-ud-Din says that the Jashi were invaded
by the Kati in the eleventh century and suggests that the Dameli
could be Jashi who retreated to the present location. The Swati
could be part of the Gubbers, discussed by Biddulph (1880:163),
who came from Swat in the 15th century. Morgenstierne
(1942:119) also believed that Dameli may be the remnant of a
language spoken by the Jashi that was much influenced by both
the Nuristani Kati and the Dardic Kalasha languages.
2
GVDojo has not previously been reported as a name for this language,
although Morgenstierne (1942:116) gave the Pashto translation ‘muK giDo{e
yu’ for the phrase ‘I am Dameli.’ It appears that this name has gained wide
acceptance among the Dameli.
5. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
There has been very little ethnographic study of the Dameli.

They support themselves primarily by farming and goatherding.
The sale of grapes in the Drosh bazaar was the only reported
crop being exported from the Damel Valley. The valley has
extensive timber reserves and is the only place in Chitral District
where oranges are grown. In 1989 the first road was built into the
Damel Valley. It is still a long rough drive to and from Drosh or
Arandu. While the people are quite poor now, the presence of the
new road may enable the Dameli to take products to market and
to be involved in a lumber industry in their own valley. Such
changes may impact the Dameli by bringing more money into
the valley and more contact with other languages. The people are
Sunni Muslims.
language. Gurdon, in the 1890s (cited in Morgenstierne
1942:116), gave a population estimate of 70 families with 40
“fighting men” in the Damel Valley. Israr-ud-Din (1969:54) says
that the average Dameli family consists of four members. This
would indicate a population of 280 people in the 1890s.
Respondents involved in this present study gave widely differing
estimates of the population — from 3000 to 22,000 Dameli
speakers. An engineer with Agha Khan Foundation, who had
been working on a project in the valley, said that there are about
500 households in the valley; using Israr-ud-Din’s estimate of
four members in a Dameli family, this would be 2000 people.
The 1987 Chitral District Council population figure for the entire
Damel Valley is 5534. Pashto, Gujari, Khowar, and Shekhani
speakers account for some of that number; however, at the time
of this study there may have been as many as 5000 Dameli
speakers. In any case, it appears that the population is much
larger than was indicated by Gurdon a century ago.
Morgenstierne (1942:116) called Dameli the smallest separate
linguistic community in the Hindu Kush region; it may retain
that distinction.
The first school in the Damel Valley was built in 1965.
Respondents said that there are now eight primary schools, a
middle school, and a high school in the valley. One man reported
that some boys but no girls attend school. Another respondent

gave a figure of 40 boys, and two others gave the figures of 120
or 130 boys going to school. Respondents in Dondideri and
Swato said that a few girls attend school. Each of these
comments probably refers to the respondent’s own village. These
figures indicate that few of the children are being educated.
Three of the respondents had at least six years of education, and
one of these had completed matriculation. Some of the teachers
are Dameli speakers, others are Khowar or Pashto speakers.
6.1 Morgenstierne’s classification of Dameli
Dameli is in the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European

family, but a placement in the Nuristani group or Indo-Aryan
(Indic) Dardic group is more difficult:
It is difficult to decide whether it ought to be
taken as a Kafiri [Nuristani] language strongly
influenced by Dardic, or as a Dardic one which has
adopted a greater amount of Kafiri [Nuristani] words
than any other Dardic language. (Morgenstierne
1974:6)
Morgenstierne (1942:119) hypothesized that a language once
spoken by the Arom and Jashi, but now extinct, is the basis for
the Nuristani elements in Dameli. He also proposed that similar
features in Gawar-bati are related to the same extinct language.
Morgenstierne (1942:146) said that Dameli has incorporated
numerous phonological and morphological elements from its
neighbors. Lexically it has borrowed from all of the nearby
languages, especially Phalura, Gawar-bati, and Kalasha. Dameli
also shares lexical and phonological features with the Nuristani
languages.
6.2 Lexical similarity with neighboring Dardic and

Nuristani languages
Dameli is described as sharing much lexically and

phonologically with neighboring languages, but these similarities
should not be misunderstood. In order to show a representation
of the difference between Dameli and the Dardic and Nuristani
languages surrounding it, word lists3 were collected and
compared. The Dameli word list was collected in Dondideri and
checked in Shintero. Each consistent 210 item word list was
compared with word lists from the other locations pair by pair in
order to determine the extent to which the corresponding lexical
items are similar. In this procedure no attempt is made to identify
true cognates based on consistent sound correspondences.
Rather, the items are compared only for obvious phonetic
similarity.4 A lexical similarity comparison between Dameli and
several neighboring languages shows the percentage of shared
vocabulary (see Chart 1).
Chart 1
Dameli
44 Biori Phalura
44 40 Arandu Gawar-bati
42 36 30 Urtsun Kalasha
33 25 26 23 Langorbat Shekhani
29 22 22 24 59 Bargromatal Eastern Kativiri
From these low percentages of shared lexical similarity, it is

clear that Dameli is quite distinct from the neighboring
languages. Undoubtedly, there are lexical borrowings between
these languages. The higher percentages do not necessarily
3
The complete Dameli word list is included in appendix B. Word lists
from the neighboring Dardic and Nuristani languages are included as well.
4
See appendix A for a more thorough description of the procedure for
establishing lexical similarity.
indicate a stronger genetic relationship with either the Dardic

Phalura, Gawar-bati, or Kalasha, than with the Nuristani
Shekhani or Eastern Kativiri. The slightly higher percentage of
similarity between Dameli and Shekhani, than between Dameli
and Eastern Kativiri, may be attributed to words borrowed
through intermarriage. Gurdon (cited in Morgenstierne
1942:118) reported that the Dameli intermarried with the Kam
tribe, which are closely related to the Shekhani.
7. PHONOLOGICAL VARIATION
Although Morgenstierne had only two language assistants,

he was able to discern slight phonological differences in the
speech of the two men from whom he collected his linguistic
data. The word list collected for this study, given by Dameli men
from two different villages, reveals some of the same
phonological variations that Morgenstierne (1942:119)
identified. (See Example 1.)
The pronunciation [o] and [i] were identified from his

“informant M”, whereas [u] and [e] were used in those same
words by Morgenstierne’s “informant G”. Similar fluctuations
between [o] and [u] and between [I] and [e] were discovered in
the data for this study. However, the patterns were not consistent
with those recorded by Morgenstierne, in that the speaker from
Dondideri used the [u] and the [I] pronunciations while the
speaker from Shintero used the [o] and [e] forms. Unfortunately,
the villages from which Morgenstierne’s language assistants
came is not known.
These phonological differences are minor and are unlikely

to impede communication between speakers of Dameli. None of
the respondents involved in this study mentioned any difficulty
in understanding the speech of any other Dameli speaker. Some
of them said there is no difference in the speech of the villages.
However, two men in Dondideri said that the speech of Aspar
sounds a little different, and one said Shintero is also a little
different. Several respondents said that the Dameli spoken in
Swato is the purest because there are no Pashto or Khowar
speakers living in that village. Morgenstierne (1942:119), noting

differences in the speech of his language assistants, said that the
Dameli community is too small for there to be local varieties of
the language. He preferred to refer to Dameli as a language that
is “...not altogether uniform”.
Example 1
1) Morgenstierne noted
[o] from “informant M” = [u] from “informant G”
Word List Locations
Shintero Dondideri
No. Gloss
26 house kol kul
87 hen kokor kukur
95 dog t_sona t_suna
2) Morgenstierne noted
[i] from “informant M” = [e] from “informant G”
Word List Locations
Shintero Dondideri
No. Gloss
31 mortar enDori InDori
44 star estaré Istari
50 rainbow edran Idran

LANGUAGES
8.1 Neighboring languages
Dameli is in close contact with several neighboring

languages. There is evidence of long-standing contact with
Kativiri to the west, Gawar-bati and Shekhani to the southwest,
the Kalami Kohistani of Dir (sometimes called Bashkarik) to the

east, and Kalasha to the north. Contact with Phalura, to the
northeast, Khowar, to the north, and Pashto, to the south, is more
recent. Drosh, which is predominantly Khowar-speaking, has the
main bazaar available to the Dameli for outside commerce. In the
past Arandu may have played a more significant role. Urdu is the
national language and is prescribed for use in the schools.
According to respondents, within the Damel Valley itself,
the villages of Kamsai, at the top of the valley, and Birao, near
the bottom of the valley, are Pashto-speaking villages. Swato,
Shintero, Dondideri, and Aspar may have only Dameli-speaking
inhabitants. Zarimbag, Damel Nisar, and Lechigram were
reported to have both Pashto and Dameli speakers. There are also
a few Shekhani, Gujari, and Khowar speakers living in the
valley. Respondents said that about ten to thirty percent of the
valley’s population is Pashto speaking. They reported that they
have daily contact with Pashto speakers. A few of the
respondents reported that they have daily contact with Khowar
speakers.
8.2 Frequency of second language use
Questionnaire information indicates that Pashto is the

dominant second language in the Damel Valley, although
Khowar has some influence in some domains with some people.
Most of the respondents reported that Pashto is their best second
language; others said Khowar or Shekhani is their best second
language. The respondents reported that for business in the
bazaar in Drosh they must choose to speak in Khowar or Pashto.
Most of the respondents reported that they had learned Pashto
either in the Drosh bazaar or from neighbors within the Damel
Valley. The fact that these respondents had gained some
proficiency in Pashto from these situations indicates that this
may be frequent and significant language contact.
There does seem to have been some increase in the use of
Pashto and Khowar in recent years in the Damel Valley.
Respondents were asked about the second languages spoken by
their parents. Some of the respondents’ parents only knew
Dameli, while today, the respondents reported, all the men speak
Pashto. However, the number of women who speak a second

language may not have increased. According to respondents, in
the past it was uncommon for children to speak a second
language; today some of the young people are learning Pashto or
Khowar. The respondents said that, in their childhood and
continuing through the present, Dameli was the language of their
homes and neighborhoods. They said that they do not feel that
Pashto or any other language is replacing Dameli. However, two
of the men predicted that Pashto will be the language their
children speak most as adults, and another man said Urdu will be
the language used most frequently.
8.3 Language use patterns
Generally, interest in the use of other languages is

pragmatic; the Dameli want to be able to communicate with the
people they meet most frequently — primarily, that is Pashto
speakers, and secondarily, Khowar speakers. Contact comes in
many different situations or domains. The following situations
reveal that Dameli is not very useful outside of the Damel
Valley.
There are a only few small shops in Dondideri, so much of

the shopping must be done in Drosh. Most of the respondents
said that they use Pashto when speaking with market traders in
Drosh. Some of the respondents said that they speak Khowar
well enough to trade with Khowar-speaking shopkeepers in their
language, but other respondents said they would have to use
Pashto because of their inability to speak Khowar. All of the
respondents reported that while traveling on local public
transportation they generally use Pashto with the drivers and
non-Dameli-speaking riders.
The respondents agreed that Pashto is the language most

commonly used for civil affairs. Local officials and police speak
either Pashto or Khowar. The few Dameli men who know Urdu
are called on to communicate and mediate with Urdu-speaking
officials. None of the respondents reported that any of the police
or officials learn Dameli.
While schooling has been available in the valley since 1965,

the respondents said that few of the Dameli are educated.
According to the respondents, there are Dameli-speaking
teachers in each of the schools in the Dameli villages. There are
Khowar- and Pashto-speaking teachers in some of the schools.
Dameli is frequently used for instruction and explanation in the
schools. This occurs primarily in the lower levels, and as
students progress there is a transition to Urdu as the medium of
instruction. Pashto and Khowar are also sometimes used for
instruction by Pashtoon and Chitrali teachers with the few
Pashto- and Khowar-speaking students. Dameli students have
some opportunity to learn Pashto and Khowar from teachers and
classmates. The respondents said that Pashto- and Khowar-
speaking children attending school learn Dameli from their
classmates. Urdu is primarily learned in school and school is one
of the few situations where anyone who has learned it has the
opportunity to use the language interactively. The respondents
felt that Urdu is the most useful and important language for
education and literacy, although they also expressed support for
the continued use of Dameli in the schools.
According to the respondents, most of the men work in the
Damel Valley with other Dameli-speaking men. Occasionally
some of the Dameli men temporarily leave the valley for
employment as unskilled laborers. The respondents indicated
that, outside of the Damel Valley, Khowar or Urdu may be as
important as Pashto for getting a job, depending on where the
individual is looking for a job and what type of job he desires.
Some of the respondents reported that they have traveled and
worked outside of Chitral District. Peshawar was the most
commonly mentioned destination, but some have gone as far
away as Saudi Arabia for temporary work. They said they would
use Pashto, and any Urdu they know, while in those distant
places.
Interview information and the opinion of the Pashto-

speaking co-worker involved in this study indicate that these
Dameli men are somewhat proficient in Pashto. Several of the
respondents gave the self-evaluation that they have good ability

in Pashto. Some of the respondents said that they would have to
speak Pashto with a Khowar speaker because they are not fluent
in Khowar. Only a few of the men said that their wives could
speak any Pashto or Khowar. They said that most of the women
are monolingual in Dameli. Only a couple of the respondents
reported that their children can speak any Pashto or Khowar.
Respondents reported that only those who have been educated
can speak any Urdu.

Dameli respondents indicate a situation in which language
vitality for Dameli is fairly strong. All of the respondents
reported that Dameli is the language of their homes, used with
wives, children, and extended family members. Dameli is
generally used for many functions within their own communities,
i.e., speaking with neighbors, preaching in the mosque, public
speeches concerning politics or other announcements, and other
similar local communication. The respondents also spoke of the
usefulness of Dameli within the Damel Valley for acquiring jobs,
performing job related tasks, and speaking to fellow workers.
The respondents explained that when someone is speaking to a
group of people within their own community Dameli will be
used unless speakers of another language, such as Pashto, are
present. Then the speaker will use that person’s language.
Children are able to use Dameli at school with their fellow
classmates and some of the teachers who are also Dameli
speakers. Respondents said that there are some teenagers and
women who are still monolingual in Dameli. This would seem to
indicate that an individual can live for many years in the Damel
Valley without being influenced by other languages.
Marriages with members of another language group can

bring language choice decisions into the home. The respondents
reported that there are some marriages with speakers of the
different neighboring languages. However, there is cultural
preference for marriages within their own group. Women from
other language groups who marry Dameli speakers are expected

to use only Dameli in their homes. Pashtoons living in the area
reportedly prefer to avoid intermarriages with Dameli speakers,
although such marriages do occur.
The maintenance of Dameli within the community, in

domains outside of the home, is significant because there are a
few speakers of other more dominant regional languages living
around them and involved in community activities. There are
Pashtoons and a few Chitralis living in the valley. In a
multilingual setting like this there are situations which require
frequent language use choices, and Dameli is generally preferred
within the Damel Valley.
The Dameli live in a few small villages in a valley on the

east side of the Chitral River a few miles north of Arandu. The
history of this people group is rather clouded. There has been
little research to verify the traditions or theories. Classification of
the language remains uncertain because it mixes features from
several other languages. There are a few slight variations in the
language from one village to another, but hardly enough to
consider as separate linguistic varieties. The Dameli population
is small (2000 to 5000) but apparently growing.
Dameli appears to be an actively used language. The people

seem to have positive attitudes toward their language. The
secluded Damel Valley provides a fine environment for the
language to flourish among its people while limiting the amount
of contact with other language groups. Based on respondents’
reports, many of the women and children are monolingual.
Dameli is the language of the home and neighborhood. Having
Dameli-speaking teachers, who can explain things to the children
in the mother-tongue, is an asset to the students’ learning and
provides another domain in which the language is used. Dameli
is not a written language.
While Pashto, Khowar, and Urdu are important in various

situations and interests outside of the valley, Pashto is the second
language used most frequently by the Dameli men. The people

seem to have varying abilities in Pashto as their second language,
although respondents reported high Pashto proficiency among
the men. There does not appear to be any definite indication that
the Dameli are shifting to the use of Pashto or any other
language. There are domains in which they must use another
language, but they encourage the use of their first language
wherever possible. There does not seem to be any awareness of
Dameli being replaced or threatened by any other language. The
Dameli think it would be bad to lose their language; and in fact,
they believe that its use is increasing due to the population
growth of their language community.
Although Dameli is spoken by a relatively small community

surrounded by larger and more regionally dominant language
groups (Pashto and Khowar), the available evidence indicates
that it is a viable and relatively vital minority language at
present. Within the valley where it is spoken, Dameli is the
undisputed choice in all in-group domains, other languages being
chosen only when there is a pragmatic need to communicate with
non-Dameli. As long as the Dameli maintain positive attitudes
and language choices are not threatened by negative out-group
attitudes towards them, Dameli should maintain its position of
relative stability in this highly multilingual region.
129
CHAPTER 7
EASTERN KATIVIRI AND KAMVIRI / SHEKHANI
This chapter examines sociolinguistic factors and language

variation between two varieties of the Nuristani eastern Kati
languages1 as spoken in Pakistan, Eastern Kativiri (Bashgali) and
Kamviri / Shekhani. Through the collection of descriptive
linguistic data, comparisons are made revealing some of the
differences between these language varieties. Factors influencing
the general language vitality of Shekhani are discussed. There is
also some mention of the language vitality of the Eastern Kativiri
communities in Pakistan. Evidence considered in this aspect of
the study included questionnaire responses regarding reported
language use in various social domains, multilingual proficiency,
and language attitudes.
Information for this study was collected during several brief
research trips in Chitral during the summers of 1989 and 1990.
Word lists were collected in Eastern Kativiri and Shekhani.
Questionnaires and interviews were conducted with eight
respondents from Gobar, Bargromatal, Shekhanan Deh,
Badrugal, and Langorbat. Interviews conducted while studying
neighboring languages have also provided insight into the
Eastern Kativiri and Shekhani sociolinguistic situation.
To facilitate understanding of the distinctions between the
sociolinguistic situations of Eastern Kativiri and Shekhani, this
chapter has been divided, initially presenting these varieties
separately. Then the comparison of the word lists from these two
varieties is discussed. The chapter concludes with a summary
evaluation and comparison of the Eastern Kativiri and Shekhani
communities in Pakistan.
1
For a description of the classification of Kati languages see §2.1.
2. EASTERN KATIVIRI
According to Strand (1973), there are three related

languages in the Kati language group: Kativiri (also called Kati),
Kamviri, and Mumviri. Mumviri is spoken in the villages of
Bagalgram, Mangul, and Sasku in the central Bashgal Valley in
the Kunarha Province of Afghanistan. (See map 3.) Kamviri is
spoken in the southern Bashgal Valley (also called the Landay
Sin region), primarily around the village of Kamdesh.2 Kativiri is
divided into two subgroups: Western Kativiri (W. Kativiri) and
Eastern Kativiri (E. Kativiri). W. Kativiri, in its various varieties,
is spoken in the Ramgal, Kulam, Ktiwi (also called Kantiwo),
and Paruk Valleys in the Nuristan region in the Laghman and
Kunarha Provinces of Afghanistan. E. Kativiri is spoken in the
Bashgal Valley of eastern Nuristan, north of the Mumviri area; it
is also spoken in villages in the Bumboret, Rumbur, Urtsun, (see
map 4) and Lutkuh Valleys (see map 3) of the Chitral District in
Pakistan. The main areas where W. and E. Kativiri are spoken
predominantly are separated by the Prasun (also called Parun)
Valley, where the Prasun (also called Wasi-weri) language is
spoken.
The main town in the Bashgal Valley where E. Kativiri is
spoken is Bargromatal. In Pakistan (see map 3), E. Kativiri is
spoken in Gobar, at the far western end of the Lutkuh Valley;
Kunisht (see map 4), at the western end of the Rumbur Valley;3
and Shekhanan Deh (called Brumotul by Morgenstierne (1932)
and Tatruma by the neighboring Kalasha), at the western end of
the Bumboret Valley. Morgenstierne (1932:63) reported E.
Kativiri speakers living in Urtsun in the center of the Urtsun
Valley. The Kalasha respondents from the Urtsun Valley
2
For further description of the geographic location of Kamviri and
Shekhani see §3.1.
3
Reported by Morgenstierne (1932) and Israr-ud-Din (1969) but the
presence of E. Kativiri speakers in the Rumbur Valley was not confirmed by
this study.
Chapter 7 E.Kativiri and Shekhani 131
involved in this research said that E. Kativiri speakers live in

many locations in the valley.
In 1902 Col. Davidson, a British officer, compiled a

dictionary of E. Kativiri, which he called Bashgali. Grierson’s
Linguistic Survey of India (LSI VIII.2) included information on
E. Kativiri taken from Davidson. Morgenstierne (1932) spent
some time studying E. Kativiri during his tour of Chitral in 1929,
visiting each of the villages where it is spoken in Chitral.
According to Strand (1973:298-299), E. Kativiri and W.

Kativiri are spoken by members of the Kati tribe. Kamviri is
spoken by the Kom tribe and some of the Kshto [kS7to] tribe.
Mumviri is spoken by the Mumo tribe. The E. Kativiri
respondents from Bargromatal and Shekhanan Deh called their
language Kati [katF], Kativiri, or Nuristani. The E. Kativiri
spoken in the Bashgal Valley is also called Bashgali. The
respondent from Gobar called his language Shekhaniwar. This is
probably the name given them by Khowar speakers; the [-war]
ending means “language of” in Khowar. Israr-ud-Din (1969:51)
also gives the names Shekhan and Bashgaliwar. The respondent
from Bargromatal, and Strand (1973:297), said that the people
who speak Kativiri prefer to be called Nuristanis. Before their
conversion to Islam the people of Nuristan were known
collectively as Kafirs, and their language as Kafiri. Kafir is a
contemptuous term meaning “infidel.” The Kalasha respondents
referred to E. Kativiri speakers in the Bashgal Valley as Kati, but
they called the people of Shekhanan Deh Shekhano. The term
Shekhani is given to people and groups who have converted to
Islam. For this study, E. Kativiri is used to refer to the language
of the upper portions of the Bashgal Valley (including
Bargromatal), Gobar, Kunisht, Shekhanan Deh, and portions of

the Urtsun Valley and Nuristani to refer to the people.
2.3.2 History
Robertson (1896:158) reported a tradition that both the Kati

and Kom tribes came to the Bashgal Valley from the west.
Traditions collected by Morgenstierne (1932:40) and Fussman
(1972:19) agreed with participants involved in this study, that the
Kati tribe originated in the Ktiwi Valley. According to traditions
reported by Fussman (1972:19) and Morgenstierne (1932:40),
some of the Kati tribe emigrated to the Bashgal Valley about 12
or 13 generations ago, in approximately 1600 A.D. Morgen-
stierne (cited in Fussman 1972:19) reported that the absence of
significant dialectal differences between E. Kativiri and W.
Kativiri makes it probable that the two groups lived contiguously
to each other at a comparatively recent date.
Until late 1893, the Bashgal Valley was considered to be
under the dominion of the Mehtar of Chitral. Due to a mistake in
the wording of the Durand Agreement, the British Government
of India agreed to give the Bashgal Valley to Afghanistan (cited
in Jones, 1974:6). The Mehtar of Chitral invaded the lower
Bashgal Valley and some inhabitants were taken prisoner and
resettled in Gobar in the Lutkuh Valley (Robertson 1896).
Morgenstierne (1932:63) reported that some E. Kativiri speakers
had emigrated to the Urtsun Valley before 1895. Jones (1974:8-
19) reports that from mid-1895 to late 1898, Nuristan was
invaded by Afghan forces under Amir Abdur Rahman, who were
intent on converting all the peoples to Islam. Seven hundred E.
Kativiri speakers from Bargromatal fled to the Bumboret,
Rumbur, and Lutkuh Valleys in Chitral. E. Kativiri is still spoken
in these valleys in Chitral.
2.4 Present social factors
Most Nuristanis are farmers and sheep or goat herders. The

villages in the Bumboret, Rumbur, and Lutkuh Valleys have
sufficient water for irrigation, but due to the high elevation, only
one crop can be grown a year. The villages in the Urtsun Valley
are much lower; the Nuristanis there are able to grow two crops a
year.
Access to the Nuristani villages in Chitral requires at least a
three-hour jeep ride from Drosh or Chitral town. The respondents
said that people from Shekhanan Deh and Gobar travel to
Bargromatal in the summer to trade with the people there.4 One
respondent reported that people from Bargromatal frequently
travel to Chitral town to buy supplies.
Between 1895 and 1930 all of the Nuristanis converted from
their traditional religion to Islam. Most are now Sunni Muslims,
although the Gobar respondent said that some of the Nuristanis
there follow the Ismaili teachings.
2.4.1 Population distribution
The Kalasha respondents in the Urtsun Valley said that 800

of the 3000 residents of the valley are Kalasha speakers. Most of
the rest are E. Kativiri speakers, but there are also Pashto,
Khowar, and possibly Kamviri speakers living in the valley.
There may be 1000 to 2000 speakers of E. Kativiri in the Urtsun
Valley.
A respondent in Shekhanan Deh estimated the population of
his village at 1200 individuals. The Chitral District Council
(1987) gives a figure of 1590 residents. There are a few Khowar
speakers living in Shekhanan Deh. There may be 1200 to 1600 E.
Kativiri speakers in Shekhanan Deh.
The entire population of the Rumbur Valley, including
Kunisht, is listed as 656 by the Chitral District Council (1987);
most of the population speak Kalasha. There may be as many as
100 E. Kativiri speakers in Kunisht.
A respondent from Gobar estimated that 200 families in his
village are E. Kativiri speakers. Israr-ud-Din (1969:51) reports
that an average E. Kativiri-speaking family has fifteen members.
This would suggest that there are 3000 E. Kativiri-speaking
4
The same may be true of Kunisht and Urtsun as well, but this was not
confirmed.
individuals in Gobar, which is much higher than the 1530 figure

given by the Chitral District Council (1987) for the total
population of Gobar. There are also a few Khowar speakers
living in Gobar. An average family size of seven may be closer
to accurate and would result in an estimate of 1400 E. Kativiri
speakers in Gobar.
Adding these figures together gives us an estimate of 3700
to 5100 speakers of E. Kativiri in Pakistan. Israr-ud-Din
(1969:51) estimates 2000 speakers of E. Kativiri in Chitral. A
respondent reported 15,000 speakers of E. Kativiri in the Bashgal
Valley, however, there is no verifiable estimate for the number of
E. Kativiri speakers in Afghanistan.
2.4.2 Availability of education
The participant in this study from Shekhanan Deh reported

that about 65 to 70 boys and 10 to 15 girls attend the primary
school in Shekhanan Deh. There is a government high school
farther down the Bumboret Valley at Brun, which about 20 boys
from Shekhanan Deh attend. There is a primary school in Urtsun,
but no other information is available on education in the villages
where E. Kativiri is spoken.
2.4.3 Contact between villages
The respondents from Shekhanan Deh and Gobar said that

during the summer many people from their villages go to the
Bashgal Valley. In fact, the man from Gobar said that members
of extended families living in both Gobar and the Bashgal Valley
maintain close ties. The respondent from Bargromatal confirmed
that many E. Kativiri-speaking people from the Pakistan side
come to the Bashgal Valley in the summers. Possibly herders
from both sides of the border share the same high mountain
pastures in the summer.
2.5 Linguistic setting
2.5.1 Linguistic classification
For many years not enough was known about the languages
of Nuristan to confidently classify them. In 1961 Morgenstierne
(cited in Strand, 1973:297) proposed that they are distinct from
the Iranian and Indo-Aryan (or Indic) languages of the Indo-
Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. Fussman’s (1972)
study of the languages of Nuristan and northern Pakistan has
further confirmed the uniqueness of this third group of Indo-
Iranian languages. Previous to the people’s conversion to Islam,
the languages were classified as Kafir languages. Strand
(1973:297) recommended that Nuristani would be a less
insulting name, and it conforms better to present terminology
used by the people for themselves and their area.
2.5.2 Language group
According to Morgenstierne (1961), Strand (1973), and

Fussman (1972) the Nuristani languages include Kati, Prasun
(Wasi-weri), Ashkun, Waigali (KalaS7a-ala), and Tregami
(including Gambiri). These languages form a group based on
similarities of vocabulary and phonology. However, the Kati
speech varieties do not show any special relationship to any one
of the other languages in the Nuristani group.
Morgenstierne (1932), Strand (1973), and Edelman (1983)

agree that there are three main divisions of Kati: Mumviri,
Kamviri, and Kativiri. Kativiri has two major subgroupings: E.
Kativiri and W. Kativiri. Strand (1973:298-299) and
Morgenstierne (1974) report that there seems to be little dialectal
variation between these two groups; however, thorough studies
have not been conducted. W. Kativiri is understood to have
several subdivisions based on geographic and subtribal
groupings: Ramgal, Kulam, Ktiwi, and Paruk. There has not been
any study to confirm variation in the speech of these groups.
The differences between Kamviri and E. Kativiri will be

further discussed in section 4 of this chapter. According to Strand
(1973:299), Mumviri is apparently a transitional dialect between
Kamviri and E. Kativiri. The characteristics that differentiate
Mumviri from Kamviri and E. Kativiri have not been studied.
2.6 Reported variation in E. Kativiri
Morgenstierne (1932:64) reported that the E. Kativiri

spoken in Kunisht, Shekhanan Deh, and Bargromatal appears to
be uniform, although he noted some possible variation between
the speech of the younger and older generations in Kunisht and
Shekhanan Deh. The respondents involved in this study from
Gobar and Shekhanan Deh said that their speech is the same as
that of Bargromatal and the northern Bashgal Valley. They said
that E. Kativiri is the same wherever it is spoken. They do not
have any trouble understanding E. Kativiri speakers from other
villages. The frequency of contact between villages (as described
in §2.4.3) and the fairly recent geographic separation of the
communities (as described in §2.3.2) provides evidence that
Morgenstierne’s evaluation is probably accurate.
For this study, a list of 210 words was collected from a man
in Shekhanan Deh and then checked with a man from
Bargromatal. Only two words were completely different; several
words had slightly different forms, and there were slight phonetic
differences in several other words. This seems to indicate minor
variation between the speech of the two locations. The
Bargromatal word list5 was compared with the Kati vocabulary
listed in Turner (1966-71), A Comparative Dictionary of the
Indo-Aryan Languages and Fussman (1972), Atlas Linguistique
des Parlers Dardes et Kafirs. The word lists included in these
sources were collected primarily from Davidson (1902) and
Morgenstierne (1932). There were 117 lexical items in common
5
The complete Bargromatal word list is included in appendix B.
between Turner’s and Fussman’s word lists and the Bargromatal

word list collected for this study.
Each word list was compared with the others, pair by pair,
in order to determine the extent to which corresponding lexical
items are similar. In this procedure, no attempt is made to
identify true cognates based on consistent sound
correspondences. Rather, the items are compared only for
obvious phonetic similarity.6 Chart 1 gives the percentage of
words considered similar.
Chart 1
Bargromatal E. Kativiri
99 Shekhanan Deh E. Kativiri
85 Turner’s and Fussman’s Kati
The percentages presented in the chart indicate that there is

little variation in the forms of E. Kativiri that have been elicited
for word lists. The difference between the Bargromatal word list
and that taken from the literature may indicate some lexical
changes over the years between the times when these lists were
collected.
There are numerous languages spoken in the Nuristan

region; however, due to the mountainous terrain, there is
relatively little contact between the language groups. The
Nuristani languages Prasun (also called Wasi-weri) and Waigali
(also called KalaS7 a-ala) are spoken in valleys to the west and
southwest of the Bashgal Valley. The Iranian languages Farsi
(Afghan Persian), Munji, and Yidgha are spoken to the north of
the Bashgal Valley. Pashto is spoken in the Kunar Valley to the
6
south. The Dardic languages of Khowar, Gawar-bati, and

Kalasha are to the east. Some Gujari speakers are reported
(Edelberg and Jones 1979:100) to live in the southern end of the
Bashgal Valley. There is little information on the relationships of
the people from these language groups with the E. Kativiri
speakers.
E. Kativiri speakers living in scattered communities on the
Pakistan side of the border reported regular contact with speakers
of several different regional languages: Kalasha, Khowar, Gujari,
Yidgha, and Pashto. Those living in the Urtsun, Bumboret, and
Rumbur Valleys have daily contact with the Kalasha. According
to the Kalasha respondents in the Urtsun Valley, Khowar is the
lingua franca in that valley. There are occasional contacts with
Khowar speakers living in the Bumboret and Rumbur Valleys,
though the predominant population is Kalasha-speaking.
The respondent from Shekhanan Deh said that the
Nuristanis there rarely intermarry with Khowar speakers.
Intermarriage with Kalasha speakers would not be allowed
unless the potential spouse has converted to Islam. The
respondent from Bargromatal said that Nuristanis from his
village rarely intermarry with Prasun speakers. He expressed
strong negative attitudes toward social interaction with Pashto
speakers and with Gujars. He said that the Nuristanis are
concerned that Pashtoons may try to move into their area and buy
their land and begin to dominate their culture.7 He also said that
Nuristanis do not like the Gujars because they sided with the
Communist government in the late 1970s, at the beginning of the
war. The Nuristanis have been trying to force the Gujars to leave
their area.
Nuristanis living in Pakistan are exposed to several other
languages if they attend schools. Urdu is the prescribed medium
of education. Provided the teachers know the student’s mother-
tongue, they will use it for explanations in the lower grades; this
7
Before the war, Pashtoons had begun to open small shops in the Bashgal
Valley, and some had attempted to buy land. The respondent said that the late
Bacha Khan, a Pashtoon leader, had encouraged Pashtoons to move into
Nuristani valleys and buy land. When the war began the Pashtoons left the area,
and he reported that the Nuristanis do not want them to return.
could mean increased contact for Nuristani schoolchildren with

the regional language spoken by a locally more numerous group.
In the higher grades they move toward the exclusive use of Urdu.
English is taught as a subject in the higher grades. The
respondent from Shekhanan Deh is a teacher, and the two other
teachers in the school are Khowar speakers with some ability in
E. Kativiri. The respondent from Bargromatal said that Pashto is
the medium of instruction in schools in the Bashgal Valley.
As for the reported proficiency of Nuristanis in these other
languages, several relevant comments were made during
questionnaire interviews. The respondent from Gobar said that E.
Kativiri speakers in his village understand Yidgha but cannot
speak it. Shopkeepers interviewed in Garam Chishma said that
the Nuristanis who come into town do not have very high ability
in Khowar, so it is difficult to communicate with them. The
respondent in Shekhanan Deh said that few men or women can
speak Khowar well, although some can speak Kalasha, Urdu, or
Pashto. All in all, it seems that there is no one second language in
which most Nuristanis have reached high levels of proficiency.
The respondent from Shekhanan Deh said that Pashto is the
most important language to know if someone leaves their area to
find employment, particularly in Peshawar. Some men from
Shekhanan Deh have traveled to Peshawar. Some men from the
Bashgal Valley have traveled to Peshawar and to Jalalabad and
Kabul, Afghanistan, where Pashto would be a useful language.
In conclusion, E. Kativiri speakers in different areas come
into contact with speakers of several different languages.
However, there does not seem to be any second language that
dominates in any one village. E. Kativiri speakers seem to
maintain their separate ethnolinguistic identity in their scattered
communities. In general, there appears to be some usefulness for
second language proficiency in Pashto for Nuristanis in the
southern valleys and in Khowar for those in the other locations.
While there appear to be indications of positive language

vitality, there is very little direct evidence. Although the E.
Kativiri-speaking community is small compared to Pashto- and
Khowar-speaking groups, it has influenced pockets of other
language communities surrounding it. The respondent from
Shekhanan Deh said that the few Khowar speakers in his village
have learned E. Kativiri and regularly use it in conversation with
their Nuristani neighbors. Kalasha respondents in the Bumboret
and Urtsun Valleys, and some of the Yidgha respondents, said
that they have learned E. Kativiri to be able to speak with the
Nuristanis in their valleys. That Nuristanis may expect others to
learn their language indicates their pride in E. Kativiri.
There are strong opinions concerning who is ethnically

Nuristani and who is not. The respondent from Bargromatal said
that speakers of Gawar-bati and Waigali are Nuristanis, but that
Kamviri and Prasun speakers are not Nuristanis. He considered
the Kom to be a Pashtoon tribe and believes that Prasun speakers
came from Europe because they are fair skinned. He considers
Nuristanis to be more courageous and to have higher values than
non-Nuristanis. These statements specifically reflect ethnic pride,
and may also represent pride in E. Kativiri as a language.
3. KAMVIRI / SHEKHANI
Strand (1973:299) identified Kamviri, the language of the

Kom and Kshto tribes, as being spoken in the villages of
Kamdesh (also called Kombrom) and Kushtoz (also called
KS7 torm or Keshtagrom) in the southern Bashgal Valley (also
called Landay Sin) in Afghanistan.8 (See map 3.) He said there
are Kom families, who now speak Pashto, living along the west
8
There may be some people from Kamdesh living in the Urtsun Valley,
but this was not confirmed.
bank of the Kunar River from Pashingar to Cunuk, although

Morgenstierne (1950:5) considered this a Gawar-bati-speaking
area. These are possibly the people called Siah Posh by Biddulph
(1880:65).
At some time in the past people from this area moved into
Chitral and settled in Langorbat (also called Lamerot) and
Badrugal [baDruGal]. (See map 4.) These people are now called
Shekhani. Several respondents reported that there are individual
families who still speak the language living in the Damel Valley,
Ashret, and along the Chitral River between these two places.
Langorbat is a small village approximately five or ten

kilometers north of Arandu in the Arandu Tehsil, Chitral District.
Langorbat is on the west side of the Chitral River. A bridge gives
access to the road on the east side of the river. Badrugal is
located halfway between Kalkatak and Ashret. The village is
some distance up the hillside from the road and is accessible only
by footpath.
Morgenstierne (1932:63-64) reported the presence of

immigrants from Kamdesh living in Chitral. He said the people
of Kamdesh and the immigrants living in Chitral do not belong to
the Kati tribe, although their language is a variety of Kati. Strand
(1973) collected information on the languages of Nuristan during
1967 to 1969. He concentrated his study on Kamviri, spending
most of this time around Kamdesh, in the southern end of the
Bashgal Valley. He has published only brief comments regarding
the results of his research.
Strand (1973:299) says that the speakers of Kamviri are

members of the Kom and Kshto tribes, and speakers of Shekhani
are members of the Ja{Œ‡ tribe. He calls the language, as it is
spoken in Afghanistan, Kamviri. The Nuristani respondents

involved in this present study called it Kamviri, Kamdeshi, or
Kamik. The Kalasha respondents also called it Kamik. Strand
(1973:299) calls the variety of Kamviri that is spoken in Chitral
LamF5rTiviri. The respondents from Langorbat involved in this
study used only the name Shekhani for their language. Shekhani
is a term used by most people in Chitral for both E. Kativiri and
Kamviri speakers. Morgenstierne (1932:64) points out that
Shekhani means “language of the sheikhs, or converts.” The
respondents sometimes referred to themselves as Nuristanis and
other times as Kohistanis. In this chapter the term Kamviri will
be used for the language as it is spoken in Afghanistan, and
Shekhani for the variety of Kamviri spoken in Chitral. There
does not seem to be an adequate term for referring to these
people. For lack of more accurate terms, Kom will be used to
refer to Kamviri speakers in Afghanistan and Shekhano to refer
to Shekhani speakers in Chitral.
3.3.2 History
Fussman (1972:19) reported a tradition that the Kom pushed

the Wai tribe (KalaS7a-ala speakers) out of the area around
Kamdesh. According to a tradition collected by Morgenstierne
(cited in Fussman, 1972:21), the Wai occupied the area around
Kamdesh until 1860. Morgenstierne (1974) believed that the
Kom entered the Bashgal Valley before the Kati. It seems
unclear when and from where the Kom arrived in the Bashgal
Valley.
At some time in the past the Shekhano spread into Chitral
and settled in the villages of Langorbat and Badrugal. Individual
families have settled along the Chitral River between Langorbat
and Badrugal. However, it is unknown if these are recent
immigrants or if they are a remnant of an earlier, larger
distribution of Shekhano. Biddulph (1880:64) reported that, “The
villages of Jinjuret, Loi, Sawair, Nager, and Shishi are also
inhabited by Siah Posh.” (See §3.1.) However, these are
generally believed to have been Kalasha villages.
3.4 Demographic factors
The Shekhano are farmers and goat herders. Langorbat is at

a low enough elevation that two crops can be grown a year; there
is sufficient water for irrigation. All of the Kom and Shekhano
are Sunni Muslims.
Strand (1973:299) reports that Kamviri is spoken by 4000
people in the Kamdesh area. The respondents from Langorbat
estimated that there are about 750 to 1000 Shekhani speakers in
their village, plus a few Pashto and Khowar speakers. The
Chitral District Council (1987) counted 881 inhabitants in
Langorbat and 740 inhabitants in Badrugal. A conservative
estimate for Shekhani speakers in Chitral is 1500 to 2000.
There are primary schools in Langorbat and Badrugal. The
Langorbat respondents said that 50 to 80 boys, but no girls,
attend school.
3.5 Linguistic setting
3.5.1 Language classification
It appears that Shekhani is a variety of Kamviri, which is in

the Kati group of languages. These language varieties are in the
Nuristani group in the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European
family. See §2.1, §2.5.1, and §2.5.2 of this chapter for more on
the classification relationships.
3.5.2 Linguistic variation
Strand (1973:299) says that Kamviri is fairly uniform

throughout the villages where it is spoken, with only slight
regional variation. He refers to Shekhani as, “…a somewhat
divergent dialect of Kamviri.”
3.6.1 Neighboring languages
Each Shekhano village is surrounded by different language

communities. Gawar-bati is the predominant language in Arandu,
south of Langorbat. Northeast of Langorbat is the Damel Valley,
where Dameli is spoken. The respondents from Langorbat said
that a few Pashto- and Khowar-speaking families live in their
village. Badrugal is located between two Phalura-speaking
villages, Ashret and Kalkatak. The respondent from Badrugal
reported four or five Pashto-speaking families and one Gujari-
speaking family living in his village. Between Badrugal and
Langorbat are many small clusters of Pashto, Gujari, and Khowar
speakers.
3.6.2 Second language use patterns
The respondents reported that Pashto is the language

commonly used for civil affairs, such as dealing with police and
government officials. These same participants reported that they
learned Pashto from contact with the few Pashtoons who live in
their village and by talking with market traders in the Drosh
bazaar, where they buy most of their supplies. Because they
cannot speak Khowar, respondents said they would speak Pashto
with shopkeepers in Drosh and with school teachers, even though
many of these people are Khowar speakers.
Khowar is seen as valuable in some domains, such as

getting a job in Chitral town, speaking to some government
officials or talking with Khowar speakers, but it is seen as
secondary in value to Pashto.
The respondents in Langorbat said that some children can

speak Urdu. Any reported ability in Urdu reflects how much
education the person has received, as school is frequently the
only place where people in Chitral have contact with Urdu. There
are Pashto-speaking children and teachers in the schools; this
contact may assist the Shekhano children in learning Pashto. The
teachers in Langorbat are Pashto and Khowar speakers, but are

reported to be able to speak Shekhani. The respondents reported
that Pashto and Shekhani are major languages used for
explaining things in the lower grades. The respondent from
Badrugal said that one of the teachers there is a Shekhani
speaker; the other speaks Phalura.
Some of the respondents have traveled to cities outside of

Chitral, including Swat, Peshawar, Lahore, and Karachi. They
said that they used Pashto to communicate with people in those
places. They said that they would use Pashto with non-Shekhani
speakers when traveling on local transportation vehicles.
3.6.3 Second language proficiency
All of the Shekhani-speaking respondents reported that

Pashto is their best second language. The Pashtoon co-workers
involved in data collection for this project said they were able to
communicate with the Shekhano men in Pashto, but evaluated
their ability as moderate, not very good. Two of the respondents
said that they did not feel they, or other Shekhani-speaking men,
had very good ability in Pashto.
Two of the Langorbat respondents said that they could not

speak Khowar; the other two reported that they could speak some
Khowar and a little Urdu. The respondent from Badrugal said
that some of the people in his village speak Pashto as their best
second language, but others are more fluent in Phalura.
It was not possible to interview Shekhano women or

children, so information was gathered from adult male
respondents who gave their opinions regarding the second
language proficiencies and language use choices of their family
members. Some of the respondents reported that the women in
their households rarely or sometimes speak Pashto; a couple of
them also have some ability in Khowar. The respondent from
Badrugal said that all the women in his village can speak some
Pashto and Phalura.
Two respondents from Langorbat said that their children can
speak some Pashto. One can also speak some Urdu. Most of the
respondents reported that their parents had some ability in

Pashto. One of the men said his parents could also speak some
Khowar. One respondent said his parents could speak only
Shekhani. These responses would seem to indicate that there has
been no apparent increase of dominance of Pashto in the area
over the last generation.
3.6.4 Marriage patterns and language use choices
The respondents said that their people prefer to marry

within the Shekhani language community, but some do marry
outside of it. The mother of one of the participants is a Pashtoon.
Another respondent reported that he has a Khowar-speaking
relative. In Langorbat, it was reported that women who marry
Shekhani-speaking men are expected to learn Shekhani and use it
in the home with their children. The respondent from Badrugal
said that many of the people in his village marry Phalura
speakers. Some of the respondents reported that they improved
their second language ability by talking with relatives who speak
that language.
Interview and questionnaire information based on the five

Shekhano respondents indicate good vitality for the Shekhani-
speaking language community. In the opinions of the
respondents involved in this study, Shekhani will continue to be
the first language of their people in the future. They feel that the
language will not die because their population is growing. They
believe that the young people desire to and will continue to use
Shekhani as their primary language. The respondents said that
Shekhani is useful for maintaining their unique identity and
spreading their cultural values, and that a shift away from the
language would be bad.
The respondents from Langorbat reported that Shekhani is
the language of their homes. It was reported that some Shekhano
children in Langorbat are monolingual in Shekhani. Respondents
said that they usually speak Shekhani with neighbors and village
elders. They reported that they sometimes meet people from

other villages where their language is spoken, and they prefer to
use Shekhani when speaking with other Shekhani speakers.
Shekhani is used for public meetings in Langorbat, including
sermons in the mosque, so long as only Shekhani speakers are
present. If Pashtoons are present the speaker will use Pashto
because the Shekhani and Khowar speakers can typically
understand Pashto better than Pashtoons can understand
Shekhani. One respondent noted that Shekhani is frequently used
in school to explain things to the children. The respondents said
that they prefer to use Shekhani for songs, reciting poetry, and
joking.
The respondents reported that the Pashto- and Khowar-
speaking teachers in Langorbat are able to speak Shekhani. One
Dameli-speaking respondent said that Shekhani is his best
second language, indicating that second language proficiency in
Shekhani is (or has been in the past) useful in the Damel Valley.
The acquisition and use of Shekhani by non-Shekhano indicates
that Shekhani holds a position of some dominance in the small
area where it is spoken.
In Badrugal, Phalura may be gaining some dominance as
frequent intermarriage with Phalura-speakers was reported.
However, there is very little information on the sociolinguistic
situation in Badrugal.
4. RELATIONSHIP OF E. KATIVIRI AND SHEKHANI
Strand (1972:299) reported that Kamviri and E. Kativiri are

separated by the transitional dialect called Mumviri. He provides
several examples revealing the phonological differences between
E. Kativiri and Kamviri. Another way of measuring the similarity
of the languages is by determining the percentage of words that
are similar. Morgenstierne (1932:64) noted that the vocabularies
of E. Kativiri and Kamviri are not significantly different. Since
Shekhani represents a speech variety which has diverged further
from E. Kativiri than Kamviri, a comparison between E. Kativiri

and Shekhani should reveal much more divergence.
A word list was collected and checked with Shekhano

participants from Langorbat.9 The Bargromatal E. Kativiri word
list10 was checked against the Kati presented in Turner (1966-71)
and Fussman (1972). A few items were eliminated from the list
due to elicitation problems. There were 194 words to compare
between Bargromatal E. Kativiri and Langorbat Shekhani. The
word lists were compared with each other, pair by pair, in order
to determine the extent to which corresponding lexical items are
similar. In this procedure, no attempt is made to identify true
cognates based on consistent sound correspondences. Rather, the
items are compared only for obvious phonetic similarity.11 This
comparison showed 59 percent lexical similarity between
Langorbat Shekhani and Bargromatal E. Kativiri. These
differences indicate that there would probably be some loss of
comprehension between speakers of these languages. One would
expect there to be a greater percentage of similarity between E.
Kativiri and Mumviri, or Kamviri than that shown in comparison
with Shekhani.
4.2 Reported comprehension between languages
Although respondent opinion is not empirical evidence, it

reveals perceptions. A short text was recorded from a Langorbat
participant and another from the Bargromatal participant.12 These
texts were recorded for the purpose of comprehension testing,
but they were not used for that purpose. The Shekhani text was
played for one E. Kativiri-speaking respondent, and he was asked
9
The complete Langorbat Shekhani word list is included in appendix B.
10
The Bargromatal version of the E. Kativiri word list was chosen over
the Shekhanan Deh version of the E. Kativiri word list because the elicitation
work was more successful with the Bargromatal respondent, and thus the
results are deemed more reliable.
11
12
The Langorbat and Bagromatal texts are included in appendices C.7
and C.8.
to report on his understanding of the text. Although this is not

considered as conclusive evidence, he reported he could
understand most of the text. However, this respondent had
reported earlier that he had learned to speak Kamik, which was
the collective name he used to refer to Kamviri and Shekhani.
The fact that he reported learning the language indicates that he
perceived it as significantly different from his mother-tongue.
Further investigation into the levels of intelligibility between
speakers of these related varieties is warranted.
E. Kativiri is spoken in the Bashgal Valley of Afghanistan

and in the Urtsun, Bumboret, Rumbur, and Lutkuh Valleys of
Pakistan. In the Bashgal Valley a linguistic variety related to E.
Kativiri is spoken in the area around the village of Kamdesh; this
is called Kamviri. Shekhani, which is a variety of Kamviri, is
spoken in Pakistan in the villages of Langorbat and Badrugal.
Based on respondent opinion, Strand (1973), and the data
collected for this study; there seems to be little variation in E.
Kativiri. A word list comparison between the E. Kativiri varieties
spoken in Bargromatal and Shekhanan Deh shows only minor
variation in surface-level lexical forms. Respondents reported
frequent contact between E. Kativiri speakers from the different
locations.
A comparison of word lists of Langorbat Shekhani and
Bargromatal E. Kativiri indicates that these two linguistic
varieties are quite different.
Among E. Kativiri speakers in Pakistan, Khowar appears to
be the most common second language. Among Shekhani
speakers, Pashto is most common; Phalura is also used in
Badrugal. While Pashto is an important language for people in
Langorbat, it does not seem to threaten the future use of
Shekhani.
Although both E. Kativiri and Shekhani are spoken in
Pakistan by relatively small communities surrounded by larger
and more regionally dominant language groups (Pashto and
Khowar), the available evidence indicates that they are viable

and relatively vital minority communities. The respondents
maintain that E. Kativiri and Shekhani are still the only
languages of the home and that it would jeopardize their ethnic
identity to switch to using another language in such domains. As
long as the Nuristanis and Shekhano maintain positive attitudes
toward their language and ethnic identification, and as long as
these attitudes and choices are not threatened by negative out-
group attitudes towards them, E. Kativiri and Shekhani should
maintain their respective positions of relative stability in this
highly multilingual region.
151
CHAPTER 8
GAWAR-BATI
This chapter examines some general aspects of the

sociolinguistic environment of the Gawar-bati-speaking
community in southern Chitral. The primary purpose of this
chapter is to examine evidences of the language vitality of
Gawar-bati. The other overall objectives of this study, such as
examining evidence of language variation, the investigation of
multilingual proficiency, language use, and language attitudes,
are also discussed. Information for this investigation of Gawar-
bati was gathered during brief research trips in southern Chitral
during the summers of 1989 and 1990. A word list was collected
and questionnaires and interviews were conducted with seven
respondents from Arandu, Pakistan and Narai, Afghanistan.
The people who speak Gawar-bati live along the Kunar

River, predominantly in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area
(see map 4) near the village of Arandu1 in the Chitral District of
Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan has forced many people in the
area to move north into Chitral. In 1990 there were many Gawar
refugees living in the Kalkatak Afghan refugee camp.
The villages in the border area of Arandu, Barikot,
Dokalam, and Pashingar are probably predominantly Gawar-bati
speaking. (See map 3.) Narai, about 10 kilometers down the
1
Research was not possible in the area where Gawar-bati is spoken.
Therefore, information regarding the villages in which people are reportedly
still speaking Gawar-bati is unconfirmed. The scarcity of reliable maps also
creates some difficulty in defining exactly where the language is spoken. This
researcher has used the map provided in Edelberg and Jones (1979) as a
primary reference.
Kunar Valley, and Nishagam and neighboring villages farther

down the valley may also have Gawar-bati-speaking inhabitants.
There is some discrepancy concerning these locations.

Biddulph (1880:64) said that the language was spoken in the
villages of Pashingar, Birkote, Langorbat, Gud, Narisat,
Maimena, Sukai, Nawakali, and Choondak. This agrees with the
map in Edelberg and Jones (1979), which locates the Gawar-bati
language as being spoken from Jalala, Afghanistan, on the Kunar
River in the south, to near Damel, Pakistan, in the north
(excluding the town of Sau, Afghanistan). Morgenstierne
(1950:5) said that Gawar-bati is spoken around Arandu in
Chitral, in Birkot and Dokalam, across the Afghan border, and in
Nishagam and Palazgor, farther down the Kunar Valley.
Respondents involved in this study said that Biddulph’s
Choondak is actually Kati-speaking. According to
Morgenstierne, Narai is the Pashto name for Narsat.
Respondents involved in this study said that Gawar-bati is
spoken in Arandu, Dokalam, Barikot, Narai, Nishagam, and Sau.
The Sau respondents, interviewed for another aspect of this
study, did not mention Gawar-bati being spoken in their village.
Biddulph said Gawar-bati is spoken in Langorbat, which is
predominantly Shekhani-speaking. Biddulph’s Gud may refer to
the Pashto name Gid for the Damel Valley, where Dameli is the
predominant language. None of the respondents interviewed for
this present study from Damel or Langorbat said that Gawar-bati
was spoken in their villages. One of the Eastern Kativiri-
speaking respondents said that Pashto is the predominant
language spoken in Barikot. Strand (in Fussman 1972:24)
reported that in 1969 only 10 to 12 elderly people in Nishagam
were still speaking Gawar-bati.
There are several languages that other researchers have

called Gawar-bati-type languages. Some of these languages
(Ningalami and Grangali) are found in the Pech Valley area (see
map 3) of Afghanistan. This valley meets the Kunar Valley at
Chaga Sarai, about 40 kilometers south of Arandu. Another
Gawar-bati-type language, Shumashti, is found in the upper part
of the Darra-i-Mazar Valley, which meets the Kunar River about
50 kilometers south of Chaga Sarai. The village of Shumasht is
Chapter 8 Gawar-bati 153
about 20 kilometers across a mountain pass from the side valleys

of the Pech Valley.
3. HISTORY OF STUDY
In 1878 Biddulph visited Chitral, and at that time he

apparently collected some information on Gawar-bati. In Tribes
of the Hindoo Koosh (1880) he included a short vocabulary of
what he called Narsati. A short account of Gawar-bati was given
by Grierson (LSI VIII.2) in Linguistic Survey of India.
Morgenstierne’s (1950) Notes on Gawar-Bati records the
information on Gawar-bati that he collected from three men
while he was in Chitral in 1929. In 1937 Lentz (cited in
Morgenstierne 1950) collected some information on Gawar-bati-
type languages spoken in the Pech Valley area of Afghanistan.
His report included a few phrases of Gawar-bati. In 1970
Buddruss (cited in Fussman 1972) visited the Pech Valley and
studied some of the Gawar-bati-type languages. Information
collected by Morgenstierne during 1964 and 1970 visits to the
Pech Valley area is presented in Atlas Linguistique des parlers
Dardes et Kafirs, Vol. 2 (Fussman 1972:24). Grjunberg (1971)
has also studied these Gawar-bati-type languages. In the 1960s
Professor Israr-ud-Din (1969), of the Geography department of
the University of Peshawar, did research on the various peoples
of Chitral, including the Gawar of Arandu.
Biddulph (1880:64) referred to the people who speak

Narsati as Gubber (Biddulph’s term for the Gawar). Grierson
(LSI VIII.2) called the language Gawar-bati. Morgenstierne
(1950:5-6) called the people Gawar and said that the country
they inhabited was called Gawardesh or Narsat. Israr-ud-Din
(1969) calls them Gowari or Arandui people and says that the
language is also called Aranduiwar. It is common for speakers of
Khowar to add the suffix -war to location names to refer to the

language of that place.
Mother-tongue respondents interviewed in this present study

called their language Gawar-bati. The word bati means speech
of. They said that Narsati was not the name of their language, but
was simply the name of a place where their language is spoken.
The respondents said that in Pakistan they call themselves
Kohistani but in Afghanistan they call themselves Nuristani. The
Kati, who also call themselves Nuristani, call the Gawar Sutr.
One respondent from Narai called his people and his language
Kohistani; he did not know any other name. An Eastern Kativiri
speaker from Bargromatal called Gawar-bati Satr. Morgenstierne
(1950) also mentioned that the Kalasha call the Gawar Satra, the
Kati call them Sätre, and the Prasun call them Satre.
4.2 History
The Gawar have a history of movement during the last

several centuries. This is revealed by cross-referencing traditions
and historical evidence. The evidence describes a general
northward movement which has brought the Gawar to their
present location between the larger Pashto- and Khowar-
speaking communities.
Israr-ud-Din (1969:52) reports that the present-day Gawar

group is made up of three original groups: the Suniardari, who
came from Asmar, Afghanistan, which is about 25 kilometers
south of Arandu on the Kunar River; the Sultana, who came from
the area of Jalalabad, Afghanistan; and the Afghan or Swati, who
emigrated from the Panjkora-Swat area.
Morgenstierne (1950:6) reported a tradition held by the

Gawar that they had come from Bajaur (and perhaps Swat) in the
15th century.2 At that time the invading Pashtoons pushed the
people out of Bajaur. Some time later the Gawar moved up the
Kunar River to the present location, driving out the previous
2
Bajaur is located west of the area where the Panjkora and Swat Valleys
meet in Pakistan. It is south of the present Gawar-bati-speaking area. See D.
Hallberg 1992:map 2.
inhabitants. According to Biddulph (1880:163), it was in the 16th

and 17th centuries that the Gubbers were forced out of their
traditional area of the Panjkora Valley by increasing pressure
from the Afghans moving into the area. Israr-ud-Din’s three
original groups mentioned above seem to be consistent with parts
of this tradition. Fussman (1972:394) takes issue with the belief
that the Gawar came from Swat, noting that this tradition is
inconsistent with the language classification of Gawar-bati. If
Gawar-bati came from Swat, it would be a Kohistani-type
language, but Gawar-bati is more closely related to Pashai.
Actually, the tradition of the people coming from Bajaur is
very compatible with the evidence. Present-day Bajaur is north
of the Kabul River, and west of the Swat River after it joins with
the Panjkora River. If in past times the area extended to the
Kunar River, which is possible, then Bajaur would have included
the area where the Pech River joins the Kunar River (see map 3),
and would have stretched all the way to the Panjkora and Swat
Rivers. A group in this area would not necessarily be in frequent
contact with the Kohistani languages of Swat. This evidence
would agree with the presence of Gawar-bati-type languages in
the Pech Valley. The Pech Valley area would have been a natural
location for the Gawar to relocate to when Pashtoons moved into
the Swat area. This would also explain how Gawar-bati could
have come into contact with Eastern Pashai and Ashkun
languages, as Fussman (1972:392, 394, 395) asserts that the
linguistic evidence shows. Another related people movement was
described by Morgenstierne (in Fussman 1972:25). He was told
in 1949 that people speaking Grangali, a Gawar-bati-type
language, had moved to Ningalam from the Grangal Valley five
generations earlier. This would mean that groups speaking a
language linguistically related to Gawar-bati have been in the
Pech Valley area, possibly in contact with Pashai, for several
hundred years.
Morgenstierne (1950:6) relates another tradition, which said
that the Gawar came from Hindostan to Chakan [Chaga] Sarai,
where they were converted to Islam. This would also place an
earlier habitation of the Gawar in the area of the confluence of
the Pech and Kunar Rivers and would maintain that they moved
to that area from the southeast, which is the Bajaur area. Today
there is a road that passes from Bajaur to Chaga Sarai, and now
that the war in Afghanistan has subsided in the area, it is being
used occasionally for traffic from Peshawar to Chitral. If it is
passable enough for a road to traverse the area, it is not difficult
to imagine people on foot also crossing the area.
5. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
There has been little ethnographic study of the Gawar. They

are predominantly farmers. They are members of the Sunni sect
of Islam. Israr-ud-Din (1969:53) reports that an average family
includes five members. None of the earlier studies provide any
information on the population of the Gawar. Therefore, with the
inaccurate population figures available today, it is difficult to
assess the extent to which the population of the Gawar-bati-
speaking community has been affected by the recent war in
Afghanistan.

language. Therefore, the figures presented here are based on
respondent estimates and interpretation of these numbers to
arrive at some estimation of the number of people who speak
Gawar-bati. Respondents said that the Gawar-bati-speaking
population of Arandu is about 1500 to 2500. These estimates do
not differ greatly with the 1987 population figures from the
Chitral District Council office. These figures show 1298 people
living in Arandu village proper. If a possible 1000 Arandu
inhabitants are Gawar-bati speakers, and added to this number
are the residents of the many small clusters of houses in the area,
who likely also speak Gawar-bati, then there is a possible
estimate of 1500 speakers in Pakistan. Two respondents gave
estimates of 8000 to 10,000 total speakers of Gawar-bati.
Subtracting the estimate for Pakistan, this would suggest a
population of 6500 to 8500 speakers of Gawar-bati in
Afghanistan. These are very rough estimations.
The only information about the availability of education that

was obtained for this study was from the respondents who
participated in this study. Arandu is reported to have three
schools: a primary, middle, and high school. Most of the boys are
reported to be going to school, but the girls do not attend. Three
of respondents, who were under 30 years of age, had some
education, but none of them had reached matriculation.
6.1 Linguistic affiliation
Grierson (LSI VIII.2:80) includes Gawar-bati as a Kafir

language in the Dardic family of Indo-Aryan (Indic) languages.
Morgenstierne (1950:7) considered Gawar-bati to form an
intermediate link between Pashai and the Kohistani languages in
the Dardic branch. In his later writings (1961; cited in Strand
1973:302), he more specifically grouped Gawar-bati with
Dameli, Ningalami, Shumashti, and Pashai as the Kunar group of
Dardic languages. Fussman (1972:393) also groups Gawar-bati
with Pashai, forming a Kunar group of the Dardic branch of
Indo-Aryan languages.
6.2 Language group
Although Gawar-bati shows some relationships with several

languages (Pashai and Dameli) spoken nearby, the relationship is
quite ancient. The languages referred to as Gawar-bati-type
languages are genetically of a much closer relationship.
According to Fussman (1972:24-25), they include Ningalami,
Shumashti, and Grangali. Lentz (cited in Morgenstierne 1950:58)
states that “Gelangeli” [Grangali] is identical to Ningalami and
Shumashti. According to Morgenstierne (1974:3), a similar
dialect was spoken in Grangal, Ningalam, and Shumasht. In 1970
Buddruss (cited in Fussman 1972:24) confirmed that Grangali
was still spoken in the Grangal Valley. Morgenstierne (cited in
Fussman 1972:25) reported that in 1970 he could no longer find
anyone in Ningalam who could remember more than a few
words of the language.
7. LEXICAL VARIATION AMONG GAWAR-BATI-TYPE

LANGUAGES
Mother-tongue respondents interviewed in this present study

said that Gawar-bati is the same wherever it is spoken; by this
they would mean Gawar-bati proper, not the Gawar-bati-type
languages discussed above. One respondent noted that he does
not have any problem crossing back and forth over the border
and therefore has frequent contact with Gawar-bati speakers
from other villages; he said that he has no difficulty
communicating with Gawar-bati speakers from other locations.
Morgenstierne (1950) made no mention of any dialectal variation
across the Gawar-bati-speaking community. Edelman (1983)
says that the Gawar language is subdivided into a number of
dialects; she may be referring to Ningalami, Shumashti, and
Grangali in comparison to Gawar-bati proper.
A list of 210 words was collected from a resident of Narai.

Then this list was checked with a resident of Arandu. The
differences were few. This list of 210 words was compared with
comparable lists taken from Morgenstierne’s Shumashti (1945)3
and Ningalami (1950) studies. After checking the Gawar-bati
word list against those recorded by Fussman (1972),
Morgenstierne (1950), Biddulph (1880), and Grierson (LSI
VIII.2), there were a total of 200 words from Gawar-bati, 82
words from Ningalami, and 113 words from Shumashti to
compare.4 Each word list was compared with the others, pair by
pair, in order to determine the extent to which corresponding
lexical items are similar. In this procedure no attempt is made to
identify true cognates based on consistent sound
correspondences. Rather, the items are compared only for
obvious phonetic similarity.5 Chart 1 gives the percentage of
words considered similar.
3
The Shumashti words were taken from Turner (1966-71) A Comparative
Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages.
4
The complete Gawar-bati word list is included in appendix B.
5
Chart 1
Gawar-bati
42 Ningalami
47 63 Shumashti
It can be seen that Ningalami and Shumashti share more

vocabulary than either of these languages does with Gawar-bati.
It is possible that speakers of Ningalami and Shumashti would
understand one another to some extent, probably better than
speakers of either language would understand Gawar-bati.
Ningalam and Shumasht are geographically closer to each other
than to the area where Gawar-bati is spoken.

LANGUAGES
The Gawar-bati-speaking community is in contact with a

number of languages. There are Pashto speakers living in
Arandu, and Pashto is the predominant language spoken to the
south along the Kunar River. There is evidence (see § 4.2) that
the Gawar community has been pushed up from the south by
Pashto speakers, who have been migrating north following the
Kunar River for several centuries. To the west there is some
contact with Eastern Kativiri and Kamviri speakers of the
Bashgal Valley, especially near Arandu, where the Bashgal River
meets the Kunar River (see map 3). There is some contact with
the Shekhani-speaking community of Langorbat and Dameli
speakers from the Damel Valley, both of which are just a few
kilometers north of Arandu. There is contact to the north with
Khowar speakers, and some Khowar speakers are now moving
into Arandu. According to Fussman (1972:395), there is
evidence of contact to the east with Bashkarik [Kalami], but this
language has been separated from Gawar-bati by a Pashto
advance in Dir for quite some time. Finally, Urdu is the national
language and the language prescribed for use in the schools in
Pakistan.6
Questionnaire information indicates that Pashto is the
dominant second language in the Gawar area. Respondents
reported that they have daily contact with Pashto speakers in the
village, in the bazaar in Drosh, and traveling to and from the
bazaar on public transportation. However, they reported that
Khowar is the most useful language for getting supplemental
employment and for other business activities in southern Chitral.
Urdu was reported to be the most useful language for getting an
education, although several respondents said that they would like
Pashto to be taught in the schools.
Generally, the Gawars’ interest in other languages is
pragmatic: they want to be able to communicate with those they
meet most frequently in a language those people understand. The
situations discussed in the following sections reveal which
languages have more dominance in various domains common to
daily Gawar activities. Evidence indicates that Gawar-bati is
often a viable option.
There are only a few small shops in Arandu, so much of the

shopping must be done in Drosh, which has a large bazaar.
Several of the respondents reported that Khowar is the most
useful language for communication in the bazaar. All of the
respondents said that while traveling on local transportation from
Arandu to Drosh, they can use Gawar-bati. Some of them said
that they also use Pashto and Khowar.
Most school-age children in Arandu are Gawar-bati

speakers; however, some have Pashto or Khowar as their mother
tongue. Respondents reported that in school the instruction is
given in Urdu with Gawar-bati used for explanations. Some
Pashto and Khowar is used for the few Pashto- and Khowar-
speaking students in classes. The teachers are said to be Gawar-
bati and Khowar speakers. There is no restriction against the
children using Gawar-bati at school.
6
On the evidence that one respondent reported that he can also speak
Gujari, we can assume that there is some contact with Gujari also.
Respondents reported that contact with police or other civil

and government officials depends on the language of that
official. It was reported that in the Gawar area some of the police
are Pashto speakers and others are Khowar speakers. None of the
respondents reported that any of the police or officials learn
Gawar-bati.
Many of the respondents reported that they have traveled

and worked in cities elsewhere in Pakistan outside of the Gawar
area (e.g., Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Karachi). Most of the
men said that Pashto was the most important language for them
to know for traveling to those cities, gaining employment, and
conversing with co-workers. Several mentioned that Urdu is also
sometimes useful in some cities.
Each of the respondents reported that his best second

language is Pashto. Most of them could also speak some
Khowar. A few of the men reported being able to speak some
Urdu and Persian.
Interview information and the opinion of the Pashto mother

tongue co-workers involved in this study indicate that there is a
wide range of second language proficiencies among Gawar-bati
speakers. These Pashtoon co-workers reported that some of the
respondents had very good ability in Pashto but that others did
not. The respondents’ self-evaluations agreed with those given
by the Pashtoon co-workers. Some of the respondents reported
that their children could speak some Pashto, but very few of the
respondents said that their children can speak Khowar or Urdu.
Most of the respondents said that their wives can speak some
Pashto. The respondents reported that their second languages
were learned by casual social contact with mother tongue
speakers of those languages, generally in the bazaar.
10. MARRIAGE CUSTOMS AND LANGUAGE CHOICE
The language chosen for in-home communication between

family members can be an indication of the vitality of the mother
tongue or the amount of contact with, and the prestige of a
second language. The choice of taking a wife from another
language group is one way in which language choice decisions
are brought into the home. One respondent had a Pashto-
speaking wife. He said that both Pashto and Gawar-bati are used
in his home. The wives of several of the respondents were
reported to have some speaking ability in Pashto, but the
respondents said that Pashto is rarely used in those homes. All of
the Gawar-bati respondents agreed that intermarriage with Pashto
speakers is not uncommon for people from their language group;
intermarriage with Khowar speakers is less common. A
respondent explained that in these mixed-language marriages the
wife learns the language of the husband. Occasional marriages
with speakers of other languages may not be a recent change in
the customs, as a few of the respondents had Pashto-speaking
parents or grandparents. However, the respondents said that they
prefer that their children will marry Gawar-bati speakers. In
contrast to the situations reported by members of some minority
language communities discussed elsewhere in this volume (e.g.,
some Yidgha and Phalura speakers), there was no evidence of
perceived benefit through intermarriage with spouses from a
dominant language group. Gawar-bati appears to be a vital
language choice in homes, even for marriages of Gawar with
non-Gawar-bati speakers.

Gawar-bati respondents indicate a situation in which language
vitality for Gawar-bati is fairly strong. All respondents reported
that Gawar-bati is the language of the home, used with wives,
children, and extended family members. However, men who
have Pashto-speaking wives or relatives reported that Pashto is
also used in the home, although infrequently.
Gawar-bati is usually used for many functions within their

own communities, i.e. speaking with village elders, preaching in
the mosque, bargaining in the local bazaar, and other similar
neighborhood contacts. The respondents explained that when
someone is speaking to a group of people within their own
community, Gawar-bati will be used unless speakers of another
language, such as Pashto, are present. Then the speaker will use
Pashto. Children are able to use Gawar-bati at school with their
fellow classmates and some teachers, who are also Gawar-bati
speakers. Respondents indicated that their language is important
for use with Gawar-bati speakers from other villages and is
important for maintaining a sense of ethnic unity and identity.
The maintenance of Gawar-bati within the community in

domains outside of the home is significant because there are
speakers of other more regionally dominant languages living
around them and involved in community activities. In Arandu
there are Pashto- and Khowar-speaking families. South of
Arandu, if there are not Pashto-speaking families living within
the Gawar communities, they are living close beside them. In a
multilingual setting like this there are situations which require
language use choices. The fact that Gawar-bati is frequently the
language chosen indicates a measure of linguistic vitality which
may enable the language group to resist domination by the more
populous language groups surrounding it.
The Gawar live in a few villages scattered along the Kunar

River from Arandu in Pakistan south into Afghanistan. There is
some evidence that the Gawar have been pushed to their present
location by movements of Pashto speakers. Because there are no
population estimates from any time in the past, it is difficult to
say if the group is increasing or decreasing in size. The
population is currently estimated to be 8000 to 10,000 people.
The village of Nishagam may have shifted from the use of
Gawar-bati within the last 20 years.
Although other linguists have found historical linguistic

connections between Gawar-bati and other languages, the word
list data indicate that the languages have diverged, so that there is
considerable difference between Gawar-bati and other related
languages (e.g., Shumashti, Ningalami). However, there only
seems to be very slight, if any, variation from village to village
within the Gawar-bati language.
The Gawar seem to have a positive attitude toward their

language. It is useful to them in many domains, not only in the
home but also in many local social situations. Although there is
intermarriage with speakers of other languages, Gawar-bati
continues to maintain precedence as the language of the home.
Having Gawar-bati-speaking teachers, who can explain things to
the children in the mother tongue, is an asset to the students’
learning and provides another domain in which the language is
used. Gawar-bati is not a written language.
The Gawar-bati community is surrounded by a number of

languages; of primary significance are Pashto to the south and
Khowar to the north. Evidence from interviews indicates that
Pashto is the most common second language. There are varying
degrees of reported ability in Pashto among the Gawar men;
some of the women and children also have some Pashto ability.
The contact with speakers of more widely spoken languages
requires frequent language choices for the Gawar. Pashto is seen
as the most useful language for travel and employment outside of
the Gawar area. The ability to speak some Khowar is also useful
for some domains. There does not seem to be an increased need
to learn Pashto in recent years relative to the amount of Pashto
reportedly used by the parental generation of respondents in this
study. On the Pakistan side, there may be more interest in the
future to learn Urdu, as it is seen as valuable for education and
literacy.
Although Gawar-bati is spoken by a relatively small

community surrounded by larger and more regionally dominant
language groups (Pashto and Khowar), the available evidence
indicates that it is a viable and relatively vital minority language
at present. Within the areas where it is spoken, Gawar-bati is the
undisputed choice in all in-group domains, other languages being

chosen only when there is a need to communicate with non-
Gawar. As long as the Gawar maintain positive attitudes toward
their language and ethnic identification, and as long as these
attitudes and choices are not threatened by negative out-group
attitudes towards them, Gawar-bati should maintain its position
of relative stability in this highly multilingual region.
APPENDICES
169
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGIES
Procedure for Counting Lexical Similarity

A standard list of 210 vocabulary items was collected from speakers at
key locations for each of the languages studied in the surveys reported in these
volumes. This list is presented at the end of this section along with the Urdu
and Pashto words used for elicitation. A phonetic chart presenting the
transcription conventions used in these reports precedes the elicitation list.
In standard procedure, the 210 words are elicited from a person who has
grown up in the target locality. The list is then collected a second time from
another speaker. Any differences in responses are examined in order to identify
(1) incorrect responses due to misunderstanding of the elicitation cue, (2) loan
words offered in response to the language of elicitation when indigenous terms
are actually still in use, and (3) terms which are simply at different places along
the generic-specific lexical scale. Normally, a single term is recorded for each
item of the word list. However, more than one term is recorded for a single item
when synonymous terms are apparently in general use or when more than one
specific term occupies the semantic area of a more generic item on the word
list.
An evaluation of the reliability of each word list is given according to
three levels, from A to C. The reliability codes are assigned based on the
following criteria: whether the word list was adequately checked through a
second independent elicitation and/or through comparison with published data;
whether the original elicitation was clearly tape recorded for further checking
where necessary; whether the word list informant demonstrated full bilingual
proficiency in the language of elicitation and clearly understood the procedure;
and whether the list was collected on location from a speaker who
unquestionably represented the regional variety.
The word lists are compared to determine the extent to which the
vocabulary of each pair of speech forms is similar. No attempt is made to
identify genuine cognates based on a network of sound correspondences.
Rather, two items are judged to be phonetically similar if at least half of the
segments compared are the same (category 1) and of the remaining segments at
least half are rather similar (category 2). For example, if two items of eight
segments in length are compared, these words are judged to be similar if at least
four segments are virtually the same and at least two more are rather similar.
The criteria applied are presented in (1).
170 Appendix A Methodologies
(1)
Category 1
a. Contoid (consonant-like) segments which match exactly
b. Vowels (vowel-like) segments which match exactly or
differ by only one articulatory feature
c. Phonetically similar segments (of the sort which
frequently are found as allophones) which are seen to
correspond in at least three pairs of words
Category 2
All other phonetically similar pairs of segments which are
not, however, supported by at least three pairs of
words
Category 3
a. Pairs of segments which are not phonetically similar
b. A segment which is matched by no segment in the
corresponding item
After pairs of items on two word lists had been determined to be
phonetically similar or not, according to the criteria stated above, the
percentage of items judged similar was calculated. The procedure was repeated
for each pair of dialects thought to be similar enough to warrant comparison.
Occasionally, one or more of the standard 210 lexical items were found to
be so problematic in a particular language that consistent elicitation was
impossible or evaluation of similarity became anomalous. In those few cases
the problematic lexical items were omitted from the data lists presented in the
subsequent appendices, and were excluded from the lexical similarity counts.
The pair by pair counting procedure was greatly facilitated by the use of a
computer program designed for this purpose: Wimbish, John A. 1989.
WORDSURV: A program for analyzing language survey word lists.
(Occasional publications in academic computing, 13.) Dallas: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
It should be noted that the word list data and transcribed texts as included
in the subsequent appendices are field transcriptions and have not undergone
thorough phonological and grammatical analysis.
A.1 Lexical Similarity 171
A.1.1 Phonetic Chart

Consonants
Labio- Alveop./ Retro-
Bilabial dental Dental Palatal flexed Velar Uvular Glottal
Stops p t T k q `
b d D g g$
Fricatives P f è x h
B v å G
Grooved s s7 S7
Fricatives z z7 Z7
Affricates t_s c C7
d_z j J
Nasals m n n3 N K
Laterals M l L
Flaps r R
Trills r†
Semi- w y X
vowels
Vowels
Front Central Back
High i uú é ä Œ¼ u
I I¼ U
Mid e oú F eú o
E V
Low Q Oú à Qú O
[th] aspiration [iƒ] voicelessness

[tw] labialization [i:] extra lengthening
y
[t ] palatalization [ië] lengthening
[zV'bàn] stress [i] shortening
[x½] fronting [Œ‡] rising tone
[Œ†] nasalized vowel [ŒŠ] falling tone
[i‚] retroflexed vowel [Œ7] falling then rising tone
A.1.2 Standard Word List Items in English, Urdu, and Pashto

Urdu Pashto
1. body jIsm bàdVn
2. head sVr sVr
3. hair bàl wextF
4. face cEhrV mVx
5. eye ek à3kh stVrgV
6. ear ek kàn GwVg
7. nose nàk pozV
8. mouth mu3h xolF
9. teeth ek dà3t Gàx
10. tongue zVbàn jIbV / z7IbV
11. breast chàti sinà
12. belly peT xeTV / geDV
13. arm/hand bàzu làs
14. elbow kohni sVKgVl
15. palm hVtheli tVle
16. finger UKgli gotV
17. fingernail nàxUn nukh
18. leg TàK xpà
19. skin jIld sàrmVn
20. bone hVDëi àDuke
21. heart dIl zVRF
22. blood xun winà
23. urine pes7àb tVs7e mutiàze
24. feces pexànà DVke mutiàze
25. village gàu3 kVle
26. house ghVr/mVkàn kor
27. roof chVt cVth
28. door dVrwàzV wVr / dVrwàzà
29. firewood jVlàne wàli lVkRi dV swVzedo lVrgi
30. broom jhàRu jàru
31. mortar màsàlà pisne gol ciz/lVKgri lVKgVrei
32. pestle hVthëi/dVstà/hàth kà hIsëV cOtu
33. hammer hVthORà/-i sàTVk
34. knife càqu/churi càku / càRV
35. axe kUlhàRà/-i tVbVr
36. rope rVsëi pVRe
37. thread dhàgà tàr
38. needle sui stVn
39. cloth kVpRà kàpRà
40. ring VKguThi gotà
41. sun surVj nwVr
42. moon cànd spogmài
43. sky àsmàn àsmàn
44. star ek tàrà/sItàrà store
45. rain bàrIs7 bàràn
46. water pàni ubF
47. river dVryà sind

48. cloud bàdVl wVryVz
49. lightning bIjIli ki cVmVk pRVkigi
50. rainbow qOsI qUzVh dV buDài TVl
51. wind hVwà (tufàn nehŒ†) hàwà
52. stone pVthëVr kàNe
53. path ràstà làr
54. sand ret s7VgV
55. fire àg ou r
56. smoke dhuà3 luge
57. ash ràkh irà
58. mud kicVR xVTà
59. dust mITëi gVRd / duRà
60. gold sonà srV zVr
61. tree dVrVxt/peR wVnV
62. leaf pVtëà/-i pàNà
63. root dVrVxt kà Ek jVR jVrVRe
64. thorn kà3ëTà àzGe
65. flower phul gwVl
66. fruit phVl mewà
67. mango àm àm
68. banana kelà kelà
69. wheat (husked) gehu3 / gVndum GVnVm
70. barley bàjrà wàrbVs7i
71. rice (husked) càwVl wrije
72. potato àlu àlu
73. eggplant bQKVn tor bàTiKgV3R
74. groundnut muK phVli mumpàli
75. chili mIrc mVrcVke / mrVc
76. turmeric hVldi kurkVmVn
77. garlic lEhsVn ugà
78. onion piàz piàz
79. cauliflower phul gobi gobi / gwVl gopi
80. tomato TVmàTVr sur bàTiKgV3R
81. cabbage bVnd gobi bVn gobi
82. oil tel tel
83. salt nVmVk màlgà
84. meat gos7t (khàne ke lie) GwVxà
85. fat (of meat) cErbi (gos7t kà hissà) wàzdV
86. fish mVchli kVb
87. chicken mUrGi cVrgV
88. egg ek VNDà hO / àge
89. cow gàe Gwà
90. buffalo bhE3s mexà
91. milk dudh pe
92. horns ek siKg xkVr
93. tail dUm lVke
94. goat bVkri bizà
95. dog kUtëà spe
96. snake sà3à3p màr

97. monkey bVndVr bizo
98. mosquito mVchëVr màs7e
99. ant ciu3Ti mege
100. spider mVkRi jolà
101. name nàm num
102. man àdmi / mVrd sàRe
103. woman OrVt xVzV
104. child bVcëV màs7um
105. father bàp plàr
106. mother mà3 mor
107. older brother bVRà bhài mVs7Vr ror
108. younger brother choTà bhài kVs7Vr ror
109. older sister bVRi bVhEn / bàji mVs7rà xor
110. younger sister choTi bVhEn kVs7rà xor
111. son beTà zwe
112. daughter beTi lur
113. husband s7ohVr / xàwVnd xàwànd
114. wife bivi xVzà
115. boy lVRkà hàlVk / àlVk
116. girl lVRki jine
117. day dIn / roz wrVz
118. night ràt / s7Vb s7pà
119. morning subVh / sVwerà sVhàr
120. noon dopVhEr GàrmV
121. evening s7àm màxàm
122. yesterday (gUzàrà) kVl pàrun
123. today àj nVn
124. tomorrow (àindV) kVl sVbà
125. week ek hVftV hàftV
126. month mVhinà miàs7t
127. year sàl / bVrVs kàl
128. old pUrànà (ciz ke lie) zoR
129. new neà (ciz) nVwe
130. good Vchëà (ciz) xF
131. bad xVràb (ciz) xàràb
132. wet bhigà lund
133. dry xUs7k / sukhà wVch
134. long lVmbà ugud
135. short choTà lVnD / cit
136. hot gVrVm (ciz) tod / gVrVm
137. cold ThVNDà / sVrdi (ciz) yVx
138. right dàe3 / dàe3yà xe
139. left bàe3 / bàe3yà gVs
140. near qVrib / nVzdik nizde
141. far dur lVre
142. big bVRà GVT
143. small choTà wVrkoTe / wàRuke
144. heavy bhàri / wVzni drund
145. light hVlkà spVk

146. above upVr ucVt / pàs
147. below nice lànde
148. white sUfEd spin
149. black kàlà tor
150. red làl sur
151. one ek yVo
152. two do dwà
153. three tin dre
154. four càr sàlor
155. five pà3c pinzF
156. six chE s7pVg
157. seven sàt uwF
158. eight àTh àtF
159. nine nVo nVhV
160. ten dVs lVs
161. eleven gyàrV yàolVs
162. twelve bàrV dolVs
163. twenty bis s7Vl
164. one hundred ek so sVl
165. who kOn sok
166. what kyà sF
167. where kIdhVr / kàhà3 càrtV
168. when kVb kVlà
169. how many kitne somrà / so
170. which kOnsV kVm
171. this ye dà
172. that wo àGà
173. these ye (sVb) dà
174. those wo (sVb) àGà
175. same ek hi / bVràbVr yào s7àn / yào rVK
176. different mUxtVlIf muxtVlEf / biEl kIsVm
177. whole mUkVmëVl / sàlIm roG / sàbVt
178. broken TuTà màt
179. few thoRà / kUc / kVm lVg
180. many ziàëdV Der / ziàt
181. all sVb Tol
182. to eat / eat! tUm khào xoRVl / tV uxRV
183. to bite / the dog kàTnà / kutëà kàTà hE cicVl / spi ocicVlo
bites / bit
184. to be hungry / bhukh lVgnà / oge kedVl /
you are hungry tUm ko bhukh lVgtà hE tF wVge ye
185. to drink / drink! pinà / tUm pio / pi lo skVl / tF wVskV
186. to be thirsty / piàs lVgnà / piàs lVgtà hE tVge kedVl / tVgei ye
you are thirsty
187. to sleep / sleep! sonà / tUm so jào udV kedVl / tF udV s7à
188. to lie / lie down! leTnà / tUm leT jào sVmlàstVl / tF sVmlà
189. to sit / sit! bQThnà / tUm bQTh jào kenàstVl / tF kenà
190. to give / give! denà / tUm de do / do wàrkàwàl / tV wàrkV
191. burn (the wood)! jàlànà / tUm lVkRi jVlào tV làrgi oswàzVwV
192. to die / he died mVrnà / vo mVr geà mRV kedVl /
hàGà mVR s7o
193. to kill / màrnà / tUm ciRià màr do wVjVl /
kill the bird! tV màrGVi uwàlà
194. to fly / the bird URnà / ciRià URti hài VlwVtVl /
flies / flew màrGVi wàlwàtV
195. walk! cVlnà / tUm cVlo tF piàdV làrs7à
196. to run / run! dORnà / tUm dORo mVnDà wVhVl /
tV mVnDV uwà
197. to go / go! jànà / tUm jào tVlVl / tF làrs7à
198. to come / come! ànà / tUm ào ràtlVl / tF ràs7à
199. to speak / speak! bolnà / tUm bolo wàyVl / tV uwàyV
200. to hear / hear! / sUnà / tUm sUno àwredVl / tV wàwrV
listen!
201. to look / look! dekhnà / tUm dekho kVtVl / tà ugorV
202. I mQ3 zF
203. you (informal) tUm / tu tF
204. you (formal) àp tàso
205. he vo hàGà
206. she vo hàGà
207. we (inclusive) hVm (hVm Or vo) muKgV
208. we (exclusive) hVm (hVm, vo nehŒ†) muKgV
209. you (plural) tUm (tUm log) tàso
210. they vo hàGwi
177
APPENDIX B
CHITRAL WORD LISTS
Language Name, Village, Location, Reliability Code
KSW Khowar, Ushu, northern Swat, A

KIS Khowar, Chatorkhand, Ishkoman Valley, A
KPN Khowar, Pargam Nisar, near Mastuj, eastern Chitral, C
KTR Khowar, Odir, Torkhow Valley, northern Chitral, A
KGC Khowar, Garam Chishma, western Chitral, A
KDR Khowar, Kesu, near Drosh, southern Chitral, A
BBK Kalasha, Krakal, Bumboret Valley, A
BRK Kalasha, Guru, Birir Valley, B
URK Kalasha, Zugunuk, Urtsun Valley, A
ASP Phalura, Ashret, south of Drosh, A
BIP Phalura, Biori, Biori Valley, A
PUP Phalura, Purigal, Shishi Koh Valley, B
SSS Sawi, Sau, Afghanistan, B
GWB Gawar-bati, Arandu, B
DML Dameli, Dondideri, Damel Valley, B
SHK Shekhani, Langurbat, near Arandu, B
KAT Eastern Kativiri, Bargromatal, Bashgal Valley, Afghanistan, B
YDG Yidgha, Zitor, near Garam Chishma, A
MNJ Munjani, Kali Shar, southern Munjan Valley, C
Missing numbers indicate lexical items excluded from the similarity count.
178 Chitral Survey Data
1. body 2. head 3. hair

KSW kàlip kVpàl phUr
KIS kàlip kVpàl phur
KPN qàlip sor phUr
KTR qàlip kVpàl / sor phUr
KGC qàlip kVpàl / sor phUr
KDR qàlip kàpàl / sor phur
BBK jàn S7IS7 jVj
BRK C7E34V S7IS7 càwVr
URK C7E4 S7IS7 C7u4
ASP UjUd S7IS7 bolà
BIP UjUd S7IS7 bulà
PUP UjUd s7Is7 bulà
SSS Ujut S7IS7 joàroTo
GWB ujut s7oëTV kE3s
DML Uz7Ut s7à lUm
SHK UjUd s7e zu
KAT jith S7e Z7u
YDG qàlip pusor kus7qi
MNJ pIs7kyo pusur pVgV
4. face 5. eye 6. ear

KSW mUx GEch kàr
KIS mox GEc kàr
KPN mox GIc kàr
KTR mox GEch kàr
KGC mox GEch kàr
KDR mox GEch kàr
BBK ru ec kU34
BRK ru Ec kV4
URK uruk Ec khV34
ASP mUx VC7hi kàN
BIP mUx VC7hi kàN
PUP mUx VC7i kàN
SSS mux E3ëC7i kàN
GWB mUkh yit_sin kVmtV
DML mukh Œ†c kàr
SHK mikh àce3 kVrmVRik
KAT nVskor VC7e3 kor
YDG roëi càm Go
MNJ rui com Goi
Appendix B Chitral Word Lists 179
7. nose 8. mouth 9. tooth

KSW nVskàr VpVk don
KIS nVskàr VpVk don
KPN nVskàr ---- don
KTR nVskàr VpVk don
KGC nEskàr VpVk don
KDR nIskàr àpVk don
BBK nàst Vs7i dàdU4Ik
BRK nàst às7i dVndoRIk
URK nFst hàsi dVn
ASP nàst dUth dànd
BIP nàst dUth dànd
PUP nàst dUth dànd
SSS nàs o3e3 dàn
GWB nàsi ànsi dVnth
DML nàs à3s dVn
SHK nàzuR à3zi dut
KAT nVso às7i duth
YDG fesko pFkor lVt
MNJ fOskV yVrv lodV
10. tongue 11. breast 12. belly

KSW lIGIni pàp Is7kVmà
KIS lIgIni pàp pàyànu
KPN lIgIni pàp S7VkVmV
KTR lIgIni pàp IS7kVmV
KGC lIgIni pàp IS7kVmV
KDR lIGIni pàp IS7kVmV
BBK jip cucu kuc
BRK jiph cucu kuc
URK jip / jiph cu3cu3 kuc
ASP jIb cici DhEr
BIP jip cici DhEr
PUP jIph ---- DhEr
SSS jip cucu Dhàmo
GWB zip hERV wVr
DML z7Ip cucu wVr
SHK dit_s cUk Tol
KAT dit_s cuk kU4TVl
YDG zebiG fiz elir
MNJ zubFn fuz s7kVmbV
13. arm 14. elbow 15. palm

KSW bàzu kurkun phàn
KIS bàzu kurkun phàn
KPN bàzu kurkun phàn
KTR bàzu kurkun phàn
KGC bàzu kurkun phàn
KDR bàzu kurkun phàn
BBK bàzà hàrkIn pE34
BRK bàzà hàrkIn pE34
URK bàzà ---- hàst
ASP hàth mus7o hVtetoRo
BIP hàth mus7o hVtetoRo
PUP hàth mus7o hVtetoRo
SSS hàth mus7ERi xVpàRo
GWB àst ---- torV
DML bàzu kus7UrIk chotV
SHK dus7 VGVpTi dVs7pà
KAT gotVr à34pTi duS7pàr
YDG lVst rVzVn pVno
MNJ lostV ---- ----
16. finger 17. fingernail 18. leg

KSW càmot dUGur Deëk
KIS cVmUT dUGur Deëk
KPN cVmVt dUGur deëk
KTR cVmuT dUGur Deëk
KGC cVmuT dUGur Deëk
KDR càmuT dUGur Deëk
BBK à3g
4 u nàKguz7Ek khur
BRK àKgu nàguz7Ek khur
URK VKguIk nàuz7ik khur
ASP VKguRi no3Kg khur
BIP VKguRi no3Kg khur
PUP VKguRi nà3Kg khur
SSS VKguRi nàk khur
GWB VKguik / àKguR nVk khur
DML àKgu4i nVK khur
SHK V3Kgio nVce3 kyuR
KAT V34yu34 nVcŒ† zVpo
YDG Vgosco VnVxni polo
MNJ àgus7kyo ---- pElo
19. skin 20. bone 21. heart

KSW phost ko5ël hVrdi
KIS phUst koëL hVrdi
KPN post ko5ël hVrdi
KTR phost koël hVrdi
KGC phost kho5ëL hVrdi
KDR phost kho5ëL hVrdi
BBK post VThi hi‚V
BRK post VThi hi‚V
URK post àThi hE34
ASP puësto hVDuKk hIRo
BIP puësto hVDuKk hIRo
PUP puësto hVDuKk hIRo
SSS gàM hVD hERo
GWB gVM hVDuki hERé
DML gVdrà V3Thi zà8ëdi
SHK com VRi zVré
KAT cUm VTi zéré
YDG kVrVst yàsti zel
MNJ phost yVsti dél
22. blood 23. urine 24. feces

KSW lei meàru lot meru
KIS lei mIRu rIC7
KPN lei mIRu mIRu
KTR lei mIru riC7
KGC le miRu reC7
KDR lei mIRu rIC7
BBK lui mutrV rIC7
BRK lui mutrV rIC7
URK loi muTrV irIc
ASP ràth mutr C7hik
BIP ràth mutr C7hik
PUP ràth mutr C7hik
SSS ràth muM gu
GWB lo cinI kà mUs7 dVl mUs7
DML loi motr gu
SHK Lui t_so3Œ†o3 giu
KAT lui t_su3Œ†o3 géi
YDG ino mizGo GV
MNJ yinV kus7tyu Go stIrus7tyu Go
25. village 26. house 27. roof

KSW deh dUr Istàn
KIS holàt dur Istàn
KPN de dUr stàn
KTR deh dUr Istàn
KGC deh / gràm dUr stàn
KDR deh dUr Istàn
BBK grom dur dràmi
BRK grom dur dràmi
URK grom ont Dràmi
ASP dis7 go5ëS7T s7àn
BIP dis7 go5ëS7T s7àn
PUP dis7 go5ëS7T s7àn
SSS guràm gos7 s7Vn
GWB làm àmo hIn
DML gràm kol s7àràn
SHK grVm àmo kérom
KAT grom àmu3 krum
YDG lVmo ke esceG
MNJ kVs7lok kyài iskiGo
28. door 29. firewood 30. broom

KSW dowàt dàr màz7ini
KIS dowàRx½th dàr màz7ini
KPN dowàxt dàr --
KTR dowàht dàru mVz7ini
KGC dowàht dàr mVz7ini
KDR dowàht dàr mVz7ini
BBK dur s7ulà S7àS7koni
BRK dur s7ulà S7àS7koni
URK durwàt s7ulà sumwàni
ASP dàr s7àkà jàrgi
BIP dàr s7àkà jàrgi
PUP dàr s7àk jàrgi
SSS dVr s7ok
3 bàbori
GWB dVr dàr bàrikh
DML dVr dàro pVs7àwVni
SHK du dào sàKgo
KAT du dà skà3
YDG lIvor ezmà refo
MNJ lowVr skUt rFfiko
31. mortar 32. pestle 33. hammer

KSW ----- ----- sVtVk
KIS VNDor musul hVToRà
KPN VNDor musul hVTolà / bIDir
KTR VNDor musul coTV / bEDir
KGC VNDor musul coTV / bIDir
KDR VNDor musul coTV / bIDir
BBK bà3cUni muso cotà / bEdIr
BRK dipà muso bVlkà
URK bàcàni musul cVTVk
ASP bàrgoli muzVl t_sVTVk
BIP bVrGe musVl sVTVk
PUP bVrGe muzVl cVTVk
SSS hInDorERi hInDorERV bàT t_sVTke
GWB hindurik hindurik wàt t_sVTVk
DML InDori omàli t_sVTVk
SHK Iru coIs7 t_sVTVk
KAT àru wo bU4DIl
YDG bVNDux bVnDux càrxo bVlqo
MNJ jozUk cobi jozUk pVtk
34. knife 35. axe 36. rope

KSW kuTEr bàrdox s7Imeni
KIS càku bàrdox s7Imeni
KPN cinE bàrdox s7Imeni
KTR càku / kutEr bàrdox / TOKgi s7Imeni
KGC càku / kutEr bàrdox s7Imeni
KDR càku / kuTer bàrdox / ThOKgi s7Imeni
BBK càku / kVtàr wàdok / bàdok ràjuk
BRK càku / kVtàr bàdok ràjuk
URK càku / kVtEr wàdok àruëti
ASP càku / kVTEr TOKgi ràj
BIP càku TOKgi ràj
PUP càku TOKgi ràj
SSS cOku ToKgoRi dhomoRi
GWB càëku t_sàreTé kiwRi
DML càku / kVTEri cosi roëth
SHK càku wVnzu kà3nik
KAT càku / kUTo wUzà3 mInV
YDG càqu / kELo tuwEr loso
MNJ kéLo / kéRo tévéro lVso
37. thread 38. needle 39. cloth

KSW s7utur s7unj zVp
KIS s7utUr s7unz7 zVp
KPN sUtur s7unj zVp
KTR s7utur s7unj zVp
KGC s7utur s7unj zVp
KDR s7utur s7unj zVp
BBK sutr suz7ik cElegàr
BRK sutr suz7ik cElegàr
URK sutr suz7ik cEleGàr
ASP sutr sEleni rVxt
BIP sutr sEleni rVxt
PUP sutr sEleni rVxt
SSS dho8ë sunEli rVxt
GWB dàu sUŒ† ToTV
DML sUtr cu3ci rVx
SHK pVce cemis rVx
KAT pcicE3 cimcic pézisnà
YDG yurz7V s7injo celVGàr / zVp
MNJ uRZ7o s7iz7no z7VgVf
40. ring 41. sun 42. moon

KSW puluKgus7tu yor mVs
KIS puluKgus7Tu yor mVs
KPN puluKgus7tu yor mVs
KTR puluKgus7Tu yor mVs
KGC puluKgus7Tu yor mVs
KDR puluKgus7Tu yor mVs
BBK VKgus7tyVr suëri mVstruk
BRK VKgus7tyEr suri mVstruk
URK us7tumrik suëri mVstruk
ASP VKgus7teri suëri yun
BIP VKgus7teri suëri yun
PUP VKgus7teri suëri yun
SSS VKgus7i suri yuN
GWB VKgustVr suri màsée
DML VKgus7tEri sEr màs
SHK Vs7te su mos
KAT V3Kgés7TŒ† su mo3s
YDG porgoce mirà imoGo
MNJ pVrGus7kyo mirà yumVgV
43. sky 44. star 45. rain

KSW àsmàn Istàri bos7ik
KIS àsmàn Istàri boS7ik
KPN àsmàn Istàri bos7ik
KTR àsmàn Istàri boS7ik
KGC àsmàn Istàri boS7ik
KDR àsmàn Istàri boS7ik
BBK di tàri bàS7i‚k
BRK di tàri piliwE4
URK àsmàm tàri dirà
ASP àghà toro bàs7
BIP àghà toro bàs7
PUP àghà toro bàs7
SSS àsmO3N tOro bVS7
GWB àsmàn tàrV wVs7
DML àsmàn Is7tàri bàS7
SHK di rVs7tV VGVl
KAT àsmà3 rus7to àgol
YDG Vsmino estàri bàràn
MNJ àsmOn IstVrV bOrIs7
46. water 47. river 48. cloud

KSW uGh sin koT
KIS ux sInt koT
KPN uG sin koT
KTR uG sin koT
KGC uG sin koT
KDR uG sin koT
BBK uk pàtis7oi minj
BRK ukh ---- mInj
URK ukh pàtis7oi mInc
ASP Bi dVriàb àbro
BIP Bi dVriàb àbro
PUP Bi dVriàb àbro
SSS i nehEàli àbro
GWB àu dVyàb VlBenV
DML ào nàli Vbrenà
SHK o nàni niru
KAT o nV3o
4 nàru
YDG yVGo dVryV / sin meG
MNJ yoGo dàryo yobVr
49. lightning 50. rainbow 51. wind

KSW bilpVk drohàn gVn
KIS bilphà5k drnhànu gàn
KPN bilpVk ---- gàn
KTR bilpVk dronhànu gàn / hVwà
KGC bilpVk GernVno hVwà
KDR bilpVk GernVno gVn
BBK indocIk Indru34 sŒ†rV
BRK IndocIk IndrU4 sirV
URK indocIk Indro34 sirV
ASP biji zIràn hoës7i
BIP biji lIndràR / DRàn hàës7i
PUP biji dràNi hàës7
SSS rVmt_sIlIk s7indVR uës7i
GWB tUlIk sonket_si hàdimVn
DML EnDoc Idràn bà8dVm
SHK pIt_sIl Endro3 dhVmu
KAT dVs7pulsElV Indro3 démi
YDG belpVk zVrnVnu hVwà
MNJ otàs7Vk ---- bot
52. stone 53. path 54. sand

KSW boS7t pon s7uGur
KIS boS7t phont s7uGur
KPN boS7t pon --
KTR bor†t pon s7uGUr
KGC boht pon s7uGur
KDR boht pon s7UGur
BBK bàt pon s7igow
BRK bVth pon s7igo
URK bVth pànth s7igur
ASP bàT pànd s7Igi
BIP bàT pànd s7Igi
PUP bàT pànd s7Igi
SSS bàT pàënt sIgVl
GWB wàt fànth seo3
DML bàT phVn t_se3yà3
SHK wVT puth t_siu
KAT wVt puth t_suúyuú
YDG GVr pVdo sEGio
MNJ koiko podo -----
55. fire 56. smoke 57. ash

KSW àngàr kus7un phIru
KIS àKgàr kus7unt phEru
KPN àngàr kus7un pIru
KTR àKgàr kus7un phEru
KGC VKgàr khus7un phIru
KDR àKgàr kus7un phEru
BBK VKgàr thum S7uTik
BRK VKgàr thum S7uTik
URK VKgVr thum s7uRik
ASP àKgor dhumi ci
BIP àKgàr dhumi dàl
PUP àKgàr dhumi dàl
SSS hVKgor dhum ci
GWB hVKgàr dum sàgé
DML àKgàr dum bVlt_sVn
SHK àKgo dim Vzé
KAT àKo3 dyum àsŒ†
YDG yuR kus7un yVxyo
MNJ yuLV loi xokis tàr
58. mud 59. dust 60. gold

KSW toq gIrth sorum
KIS TUk gEr0xt½ h sonV
KPN tUk ---- sorum
KTR tUq ghIrth sorum
KGC toq gIhth sorum
KDR toq gIhth soErum
BBK krEs7 udhu34 su34à
BRK tUk khàtur su4E43
URK kres7 udhu34 su34à3
ASP cicVl duRi sIrVzVr
BIP cicVl duRi sIrVzVr / sowàn
PUP cicVl duRi sowàn
SSS xVTo duRo loylo zVr
GWB càkVR pisin / duRà son
DML xVTV pIsIn son
SHK s7ur pVrzé sum
KAT s7ur pVrVs sun
YDG xelàroGo gehté sorVm / suwErum
MNJ càlVf GVbor nVkrV
61. tree 62. leaf 63. root

KSW kàn C7hàN iwàk
KIS kVn C7hàN iwàk
KPN kàn C7hàN iwàk
KTR kàn C7hàN iwàk
KGC kàn C7àn yowVk
KDR kàn C7hàN iwàk
BBK muT pU34 Isno3s
BRK muTh pU34 Iznos
URK muT po34 isnos
ASP moT pàlà zele
BIP moT pàlà nERVi
PUP moT pàlà nERVi
SSS jul pàMo nhORe
GWB moTV fVTV nàR
DML moT phVT sà3si
SHK kàné por Lu
KAT kVnuú pur Lu
YDG dràxt pFNeúk owxe
MNJ dVrVxté bVrGiko wix
64. thorn 65. flower 66. fruit

KSW zUx gVmburi mewà
KIS zox gVmburi mewà
KPN --- gVmburi mewà
KTR dzUx gVmburi mewà
KGC zUx gVmburi mewà
KDR zUx gVmburi mewà
BBK cU3k gVmburi me3wV3
BRK cU3k gVmburi mE3wV3
URK hà3cFr pus7Ik mewV3
ASP khà8ëNDo pIs7ik mewà
BIP khà8ëNDo pIs7ik mewà
PUP khà8ëNDo pIs7ik mewà
SSS kàNDo3 pUS7 mewo
GWB hVncVR pus7V mewo
DML kà3Tà pUs7 mewà
SHK tVŒ† pis7 mewà
KAT tà34Œ† pis7 miwV
YDG VkVde gVmbur mewà
MNJ xor gél miwà
67. mango 68. banana 69. wheat (husked)

KSW àm kelV go5ëm
KIS àm kIlà goëm
KPN àm kelV go5ëm
KTR àm kelV go5ëm
KGC àm kelV go5ëm
KDR àm kelV go5ëm
BBK Vm kelV gum
BRK -- ---- Gum
URK -- ---- go5ëm
ASP àm kelà gho5ëm
BIP àm kelà gho5ëm
PUP àm kelà gho5ëm
SSS Vm kelo gom
GWB àm kelà gom
DML àm kelà gom
SHK àm kelà gum
KAT Vm kilV gum
YDG Vm kelà GVdVn
MNJ àm kelà GodVm
70. millet 71. rice 72. potato

KSW lo / bàro grinj àlu
KIS olin grInc àlu
KPN gVràs grinj àlu
KTR gràs / oLin grinj àlu
KGC gràs / oRin grinj àlu
KDR gràs grinj àlu
BBK à4In s7Vli / grinz7 àlu
BRK à4In grInz7 àlu
URK hà4In grinc àlàw
ASP àëNo ruji àlu
BIP ---- ruji àlu
PUP àëNo ruji àlu
SSS bàz7àro tàluN àlu
GWB bàjrà TunDUl àlu
DML à4in tVlun àlu
SHK bàjrà mo àlu
KAT ro mo3 àluk
YDG yurzon grinc àlu
MNJ VrzVn brInj àlu
73. eggplant 74. groundnut 75. chili

KSW bàTiKgVn mum phVli mVrc
KIS pàTigàn mum phVli mVr0x½c
KPN ---- mum phVli ----
KTR pàTigàn mum phVli mVhc / mVrc
KGC pVTigàn mum phVli màhc
KDR pàTigàn mum phVli màhc / mVxc
BBK ---- bum pVli mV3c
BRK ---- bum phVli mVc
URK khàlià bum pVli mVc
ASP pàTigàn muK phVli mVrcVkài
BIP pàTigàn muK phVli mVrc
PUP pàTigàn muK phVli mVhc
SSS bonjONà3 mum phVleà mVruc
GWB wàTiKgri mum phVli murIc
DML bàtiKgVR mum phVli mVrVc
SHK wàTiKgRi mum phVli mVrVc
KAT bVnjon mom phVli mUrc
YDG pàTiKgVn mom phVli màhc
MNJ ---- ---- mUlc
76. turmeric 77. garlic 78. onion

KSW zEhcàwà uGi trEs7Tu
KIS zEhcàwà wrEZ7nu tEs7Tu
KPN ---- ---- trVs7Tu
KTR zEhcàwà wrEZ7nu ThES7Tu / thr†Es7Tu
KGC zehcVwà brEZ7nu trVs7Tu
KDR zEhcàwà vrEz7nu / wEs7nu3 tEs7Tu / trEs7Tu
BBK zE4càwà wES7nu34 kVcInDuk
BRK zE4càwà vrEZ7nu kVcEnDuk
URK zEëcàwà vrEs7nu kVcinDuk
ASP kUrkàmàn ughi piàz
BIP kUrkàmàn ughi piàz / kVcVnDuk
PUP kUrkàmàn ughi kVcVnduk
SSS hVrIl làoS7uN pàlo3N
GWB kurkàmàn làus7uK fàlàn
DML kurkàmàn ugà kVcVnDok
SHK kurkVmon ughà ----
KAT zVrcàwà ---- cEknuk
YDG zEhcàwà wez7nu piG
MNJ zVrcwà wez7nu pioz
79. cauliflower 80. tomato 82. oil

KSW gopi bàtiKgVl tEl
KIS gobi bàlugun tEl
KPN gobi pàtiKgVl tEl
KTR gopi pàTiKgEl tEl
KGC gobi pàtiKgEL tEl
KDR gobi pàTiKgEL tEl
BBK gobi pàtiKgEl teo
BRK gobi pàTiKgEl tEo
URK gobi pàTiëKgVr tEl
ASP gopi / gobi bEtiKgVlV tEl
BIP gopi bEtiKgVlV tEl
PUP gopi bEtiKgVlV tEl
SSS gopeà botiKgVReà tEl
GWB gophi wVTiKgRi tEl
DML gUlgopi bàTiKgVr tEl
SHK gopi wàTiKgVri tel
KAT gUlpi pàtiKgVl til
YDG gopi pàTiKguRe roGon
MNJ ---- bonz7àn tIl
83. salt 84. meat 85. fat

KSW trup phus7ur huC7
KIS truph pus7ur ----
KPN ---- phus7ur GVp
KTR trup pus7ur GVp / hoC7
KGC trup phus7ur GVp
KDR trup phus7ur GVp
BBK lo34 mo3s mE3
BRK lU4 mos mE3
URK lo34 mos mE
ASP LoëN mhàs mi
BIP LoëN mhàs mi
PUP LoëN mhàs mi
SSS LON mos sIkO
GWB lon àndV sikV
DML lon màs eskà
SHK uzékh Vno eskeo
KAT Z7ukh bFtF skF
YDG nFmàlGo Gus7 wàzd
MNJ nàmàlGo Gos7 sVpron
86. fish 87. chicken 88. egg

KSW mVt_si kàhVk àyukun
KIS màt_si kàhVk àyukun
KPN mVt_si kàhVk àyukun
KTR mVt_si kàhVk àyukun
KGC mVt_si kàhVk àyukun
KDR mVt_si kàhVk àyukun
BBK mVt_shi kVkVwV3k o3D
4 rVk
BRK màt_si kVkVwV3k àyukun
URK mut_si kVkwVk hà3Druk
ASP remVt_s kàkoeki hVNo
BIP remVt_s kàkoeki hVNo
PUP mVt_si kàkàwe3ki hVNo
SSS mEt_sIN kukuRi VNDo
GWB mVcoTV ---- hànDV
DML àëmrVs kukur VnVk
SHK omVsik kok Vzo
KAT omVt_sV koëk kàkUk puDuk
YDG kVp kiryo VGurG
MNJ kop kéryo àGurG
89. cow 90. buffalo 91. milk

KSW les7u gàmES7 C7hir
KIS les7u gàmES7 C7hiR
KPN les7u gàmES7 C7iR
KTR les7u gàmES7 C7hir
KGC les7u gàmES7 C7hir
KDR les7u gàmES7 C7hir
BBK gVk gàmE3S7 C7Ir
BRK gVkh gàmES7 C7hIr
URK gVkh mE3S7 gVkh C7hIr
ASP ghào mExi cIr
BIP ghào mExi cIr
PUP ghào mExi cIr
SSS goe mIS7 cIr
GWB het_si mexà cir
DML gà mexà C7iër
SHK go mez7i zu
KAT go mVS7Œ† go zu
YDG Gàwo gVmes7ek xVs7irà
MNJ Gowo ---- xs7irà
92 . horns 93. tail 94. goat

KSW sUrUK rum pài
KIS sruKk rum pài
KPN ---- rum pài
KTR sUrUKg rum pài
KGC sUruKg rum pài
KDR sruKk rum pài
BBK S7iK dVme34Œ‚† pài
BRK S7iK dVmERi pài
URK S7iK gus7ik pài
ASP s7iKgV lVmeëTi chEëli
BIP s7iKgV lVmeëTi chEëli
PUP s7iKgV lVmeTi chEëli
SSS S7IKg lomEëTi cOli
GWB s7iK lemoTV heni
DML S7IK lemeT pài
SHK s7iKg dVmà3i wVzé
KAT s7iK dFmF34F wVsé
YDG s7u3 lim wizo
MNJ S7Ux dUmbikà vFzo
95. dog 96. snake 97. monkey

KSW reëni ài mukuL
KIS reëni ài mukuL
KPN reëni ---- mUkuL
KTR reëni ài mUkuL
KGC reëni àië mukuL
KDR reëni àië mukul
BBK s7oà 43 gok mVku4yEk
BRK S7uà
43 gokh mE4ëkà
URK s7oà 43 cuànà mE3ë4 kV
ASP kucuro jVndUrà màëkVR
BIP kucuro jVndUrà màëkVR
PUP kucuro jVndUrà màkVR
SSS kucoro jàndVrào s7àdo
GWB s7unV zenth màkVR
DML t_sunà z7Vn màkUR
SHK koi bàmIst mVGVR
KAT kU4i bibimstV mVkV4
YDG Gàlf iz7 s7odo
MNJ GUlf mor ----
98. mosquito 99. ant 100. spider

KSW ---- pilili s7ubinVk
KIS ---- pIlili s7IpinVk
KPN kVgunu ---- ----
KTR kugunu pilili s7ubinVk
KGC kVgunu pilili s7ubinVk
KDR kogunu pIlili s7ubinVk
BBK trVkmV3gVs7 pililVk upàlVk
BRK trVkmàKgVs7 pililVk upàlVk
URK màwz7ik piulik pàolàk
ASP puti pililo buDoLo
BIP puti pililo buDoLo
PUP puti pililo bàDo3
SSS phutho pilo buDo
GWB mVsà philà jolà
DML Du3 pIphili biz7àl
SHK nVs7Teor rVmikh jolà
KAT tVrVk ràmikh pàrkEmuk
YDG mVxs7é morGo ustàdà
MNJ pàs7à murcIk tortVnIk
101. name 102. man 103. woman

KSW nàm mos7 àurVt
KIS nàm mos7 kimeri
KPN nàm mos7 kimIri
KTR nàm mos7 kimEri
KGC nàm mos7 kimIri
KDR nàm mos7 kimIri
BBK no3m mo3Ic Istriz7à
BRK nom mUc Istiz7à
URK nom mU3c Istriz7à
ASP no3 mŒ†s7 kuRi
BIP no3 / nàm mŒ†s7 kuRi
PUP nàm mŒ†s7 kuRi
SSS nom mànus7 MIRi
GWB nàm mànuS7 s7Igàli
DML nàm mVc z7àmi
SHK num mVnji joR
KAT nom mVns7i jukur
YDG nàm mVLV z7iKgiko
MNJ nom mErà z7iKkiko
104. child 105. father 106. mother

KSW màsun boà nVn
KIS t_séq tVt nVn
KPN t_sIt_sVk tVt nVn
KTR t_séq tVt nVn
KGC t_séq tVt nVn
KDR t_séq tVt nVn
BBK sudà dàdà àyà
BRK sudà dàdà àyà
URK àz7ità dàëdà àyà
ASP koNàk bàbo yei
BIP kho bàëbo yei
PUP koNàk bàbo yei
SSS lào bàëbo yei
GWB TIkor bàp jVi
DML zàtVk dàDi yi
SHK pàrmài tot nu
KAT pIrmI‚† to nu3
YDG zVmon tVt nino
MNJ dIkdErà tot nenV
107. brother 109. sister 111. son

KSW bràr ispisàr z7ào
KIS bràr isëàr z7iào
KPN bràr ist_sàr z7ào
KTR bràr Ispsàr z7ào
KGC bràr ispesàr z7ào
KDR bràr IspIsàr z7ào
BBK bàyà bàbà putr
BRK bàyà bàbà putr
URK bàyà bàbà putr
ASP bro bhEën putr
BIP bro bhEën putr
PUP bro bhEën putr
SSS brà bhEN puM
GWB bVlàyà sVsi pus7
DML brà pVs pUtr
SHK brà sus pitré
KAT bro sus pitr
YDG wrài exo purà
MNJ vIroi Ixà pur
112. daughter 113. husband 114. wife

KSW z7u5ër mos7 bo5ëk
KIS z7u5ër mos7 boëk
KPN z7u5ër mos7 bo5ëk
KTR Z7uër mos7 boëk
KGC Z7uër mos7 bo5ëk
KDR z7u5ër mos7 boëk
BBK cu bEru jà
BRK cu bEru jà
URK jur / chu bàru jà
ASP dhŒ‡ë bhVrib kuRi
BIP dhŒ‡ë bhVrib kuRi
PUP dhŒ‡ë bhàRev kuRi
SSS dhŒ‡ë mis7 MERi
GWB zu hEreo mVs7i
DML z7u bVreo Is7tri
SHK juk moc jUr
KAT jukh / ji mVc s7tIri
YDG luGdiko s7ifé wuLo
MNJ lVGdiko s7Ifi wUlà
115. boy 116. girl 117. day

KSW DVq kumoro ànus
KIS DVq kumoru ànus
KPN dVk kumoro ----
KTR dàq kumoro ànUs
KGC DVq kumoro Vnus
KDR DVq kumoro ànus
BBK puruS7guàk Istriz7àguàk bàs
BRK puruS7gu4Ek S7triz7àgu4Ek bàs
URK puruS7gu4ëk Istriz7gu4ëk bàsE
ASP phoë phài des
BIP phoë phài des
PUP phoë phài des
SSS pho phoi dhIs
GWB Tekoré Tekori des
DML poi bVre dio
SHK àRi juk gVjàr
KAT médé jukh géjur
YDG idà idiko mis7
MNJ idV kiKkiko mis7V3
118. night 119. morning 120. noon

KSW chi chuci grEnIs7
KIS cui cucà grEnIs7
KPN cui chuci grEnIs7
KTR chui chuci grànIs7
KGC chui chuci grànIs7
KDR chui chuci grEnIs7
BBK ràt àduà hulukunà
BRK r†àt àduà hulukunà
URK Fràt àdu3. huluk
ASP rot ros7i dhEdi
BIP rot ros7i dhEdi
PUP rot ros7i dhEdi
SSS rOth làolàpàr bhEroN
GWB yEl rot_s dià8di
DML rEt gurum diwEl
SHK ràdàr procà gVres7
KAT ràdUr puckUl gris7
YDG tiro sVhVr mis7Vn
MNJ turiko sVrpVgV ----
121. afternoon 122. yesterday 123. today

KSW s7àm wezin hVnun
KIS buto wVxt wIzE hVnunt
KPN s7àm dos7 hVnun
KTR s7àm doS7 / wezen hVnun
KGC s7àm doS7 hVnun
KDR s7àm doS7 hVnun
BBK cVkdigweo doS7 o3jà
BRK cVkdiwio dos7 o3jà
URK ---- doS7 hà3jà
ASP màxàm dhoR àj
BIP màxàm dhoR àj
PUP màxàm dhoR àj
SSS màxOm dhoR àz7
GWB s7àm dosIki nVnIki des
DML màkàm dos mudyà
SHK màxom dus stru gVjàr
KAT s7om dus s7érVk géjur
YDG s7àm uzir dVr
MNJ s7om sVrpVgVbigV ---
124. tomorrow 125. week 126. month

KSW piKgàs7i hVftà mVs
KIS cuci hVftV mVs
KPN cuci sUt bVs / hVftà mVs
KTR chuci / piKgàcui sUt bVs / hVftà mVs
KGC peKàcoi sUt bVs / hVftà mVs
KDR piKgàchui / cuci sUt bVs mVs
BBK copo sVt bVs màstruk
BRK copo sVt bàs màstruk
URK cupeli sàt bVs màstruk
ASP ros7i àftà yu3
BIP ros7i àftà yu3
PUP ros7i àftà yu3
SSS làëpOre s7ukoàr yuN
GWB rot_s s7ukowàr màsui
DML gormà sVt bàs màs
SHK procVl VGVR mos
KAT dVlke VgVr mos
YDG sVbà hVfto mox
MNJ yodàr sàr àbdà mo
127. year 128. old 129. new

KSW sàl pàRàNu3 noG
KIS sàl pàRàNo3 nox
KPN sàl pàRàNu3 noG
KTR sàl pàràNu3 noG
KGC sàl pVrVno noG
KDR sàl pàRàNu3 noG
BBK kào s7umbErVn no3à 4
BRK kào s7umbErVn nU3à
4
URK kVl s7umbErVn no3à 4
ASP kàl pVro3No3 nào
BIP kàl pVro3No3 nào
PUP kàl pVro3No3 nào
SSS kOl Dàgo nào
GWB kàl àuluki nuKgi
DML kàl z7VrV no3wà3
SHK sé purdu nui
KAT sé syumà nu3i
YDG sVlo kohno no
MNJ sol kunoGo nVve
130. good 131. bad 132. wet

KSW jàm s7um zà
KIS z7àm s7um zV
KPN jàm s7um zV
KTR jàm s7um zàh
KGC jàm s7um zàh
KDR jàm s7um zàh
BBK pruS7T s7um grilà
BRK pruS7T s7um grilà
URK pruS7T s7um grilà
ASP s7o xàrob / kàco sIndo
BIP s7o xàrob / kàco sIndo
PUP s7i xàrob / kàco sIndu
SSS bàlo qoido nOlo
GWB lVflV hVràb / kàidé bilà
DML VbUt kVcV grilà
SHK les DVgVr z7Vlé
KAT lVstV dIgVr z7Flé
YDG GVs7i s7um xust
MNJ Gàs7 liut càl
133. dry 134. long 135. short

KSW C7uC7u druK iskurdi
KIS C7uC7hu druK t_séq
KPN C7uC7u druK t_sék
KTR C7uC7hu druKg Iskurdi / t_séq
KGC C7uC7hu druK Uskurdi
KDR C7uC7hu druK Iskur
BBK S7uS7tà drigà bE4ts_ Vk
BRK S7uS7tà drigà bE4ts_ Vk
URK àS7uS7Vl drigà thàwrik
ASP s7uko drIgo kVTàno3
BIP s7uko drIgo kVTàëno3
PUP s7uko drIgo kVTàëno3
SSS s7ukho dVrgo kVTàno3
GWB s7ukuwV ligVlà kVTVné
DML s7uki drigà thVwàrà
SHK xos7ki dVrgV3 turt_su3
KAT drŒ†s7t dVrgV34 mo3tŒ†
YDG us7k ven kuik
MNJ wus7k vànj ----
136. hot 137. cold 138. right

KSW peC7 us7Vk horki
KIS pEC7 uS7Vk hos7kiƒ
KPN bEc us7Vk ----
KTR pIC7 uS7Vk froski
KGC peC7 uS7Vk hoski
KDR peC7 uS7Vk hoski
BBK tàpàlà oS7 drVC7wi
BRK ---- os7 drVC7
URK tàpiri os7 drV4C7
ASP tàëto s7Idàlo dEcini
BIP tàëto s7Idàlo dEcini
PUP tàëto s7Idàlo dEcini
SSS tà8ëto s7idàlo dàC7oNo
GWB tVpo s7VlV dàciné
DML tVpV s7Eli dVC7àni
SHK tàbis yut_s pVcudIs7
KAT ---- yuz dVcIn
YDG pVC7 yox urzox
MNJ gVrVm yVx urzuk
139. left 140. near 141. far

KSW koli S7oi dudEri
KIS khoLi S7oi dudEri
KPN ---- S7oi dudEri
KTR khoLi S7oi dudEri
KGC khoLi S7oi dudEri
KDR khoLi S7oi dudEri
BBK kE4wi tàdVkà des7V
BRK kàwRi S7oiunà des7V
URK khà4wi àjàndà dEs7V
ASP kUs7i nihàRà dhurà
BIP kUs7i nihàRà dhurà
PUP kUs7i nihàRà dhurà
SSS kuROki nIhIRo dhuro
GWB kàoRàki nIRà durài
DML kUs7i kà4i du8ërV
SHK kuàr tore bVdriKgé
KAT kà tEvIrE3 bVdyur
YDG cop nVzdikà luro
MNJ càp nVzdik lUrV
142. big 143. small 144. heavy

KSW loT t_siVq qài
KIS luT t_séq qài
KPN lut t_sék kài
KTR loT t_séq qài
KGC loT t_séq qài
KDR lUT t_séq qài
BBK gonà cutyVk guràkà
BRK gàDà cutyVk àKguràkà
URK gànà àluik VKguruk
ASP gàDo loëko UKguro
BIP gàDo loëko UKguro
PUP gàDo loëko UKguro
SSS ghàno lào huguro
GWB DVl polV gVndàlà
DML bVlo ucUTVn Ugurà
SHK olo turt_so àlo3Kgo
KAT àlI pVrmi gVnwo
YDG ustur rizà GVrGé
MNJ stir dIkdErà wVzmin
145. light 146. above 147. below

KSW lot_s sorV / Z7àKg mulà
KIS loët_s z7VKk pVst / muLi
KPN lot_s ---- pVst
KTR lot_s sorV muLà
KGC lot_s sorV muLV
KDR lot_s sorV / z7Vn muLi / mulà
BBK pŒ†s7tyVk tàrà nu34nV4
BRK lot_s tàrà nu3o4 nà
URK ucik tàrà VndrItà
ASP ubo utàlo Topà
BIP ---- utàlo Topà
PUP ---- utàlo Topà
SSS upho unDi bhuni
GWB ubV dVrài màlài
DML ubV pUcu bun / nyE4
SHK luko utulu yure
KAT lukV ulV3 vIré
YDG sVbuk skosor IS7tinVn
MNJ sàbUk blVnd pVst
148. white 149. black 150. red

KSW Is7pIru S7à5ë kuRui
KIS s7pIru S7à5ë krui
KPN s7pIru S7à5ë kIRui
KTR Is7pEru S7àë kroi
KGC s7pIru S7à5ë krui / kIRui
KDR s7pIru S7àë kRui / kIRui
BBK goirVk kIris7nV làZ7ià
BRK goiRVk kriZ7nV làC7ià
URK gorà krinDà lVC7iV
ASP pVNàlo kIS7Ino3 loylo / lohiLu
BIP pVNàlo kIS7Ino3 lohiLu
PUP pVNàlo kIS7Ino3 loylo
SSS pàràNo3 kVS7VNo3 loylo
GWB uzElV kànt_sV lutrV
DML go8ërà krinà làichà
SHK kVjIr z7ikh zVn
KAT kàs7Ir z7i zV34ë
YDG spi nVrVu golgun
MNJ spi nVrow sUrx
151. one 152. two 153. three

KSW i ju troi
KIS i z7u troi
KPN i ju troi
KTR i ju troi
KGC i ju troi
KDR i ju troi
BBK Ek du tre
BRK Ek du trE
URK Ek du tre
ASP àk du tro
BIP àk du tro
PUP àk du tro
SSS yVk du Mo
GWB yVk du Me
DML Ek du trà
SHK eo du tre
KAT Ew dui tErE
YDG yu loh s7uroi
MNJ yu lU s7Iroi
154. four 155. five 156. six

KSW co5ër po3z7 C7hoy
KIS coër ponc C7oi
KPN co5ër po3c coi
KTR coër po3c C7hoi
KGC co5ër po3c C7hoi
KDR co5ër po3c C7hoi
BBK cào poŒ†n S7o
BRK cào ponc S7o
URK cào pVnc S7o
ASP cUr pànj / pànc S7o
BIP cUr pànj / pànz7 S7o
PUP cUr pànj S7o
SSS cor pà3j S7o
GWB t_sur pànt_s s7o
DML cor pà3c S7o
SHK s7to poc s7u
KAT s7tEwo puc S7u
YDG cir pànc uxs7o
MNJ cfur ponz7 oxs7à
157. seven 158. eight 159. nine

KSW soth u3ST7 niU
KIS sot o3S7T niU
KPN soth U3s7t niU
KTR sot Us7t niU
KGC sot US7T niU
KDR soth U3s7t niU
BBK sVt V3ST7 no3
BRK sàth VS7Th no3
URK sVt V3ST7 no3
ASP sàth àS7T nu3
BIP sàth àS7T nu3
PUP sàth àS7T nu3
SSS sàth àS7 Nu3
GWB sVth àS7T nu3
DML sVth VS7Th no3
SHK soth oëS7T nu
KAT suth uS7Th nu3
YDG Vfdo Vs7co no
MNJ ovdV os7kyà no
160. ten 161. eleven 162. twelve

KSW jUs7 jus7i johoju
KIS jUs7 jUs7`i joh ju
KPN jUs7 jus7i joh juh
KTR jUs7 jus7i joh ju
KGC jUs7 jus7i joh juh
KDR jUs7 jus7i joh ju
BBK dVs7 dVs7yegV dVs7 yeduV
BRK dVs7 dVs7yegà dVs7 yeduà
URK dVs7 dVs7yegV dVs7 duà
ASP dàS7 àkos7 bos7
BIP dàS7 àkàs7 bàs7
PUP dàS7 àkos7 bos7
SSS dEs7 yVkos7 bos7
GWB dVs7 jVs7 bàs7
DML dVs7 yàs7 bàs7
SHK dut_s yànit_s dit_s
KAT dut_s yVnit_s dit_s
YDG los losyu los loh
MNJ dà yozdà dwoz dà
163. twenty 164. one hundred 165. who

KSW bIs7Ir s7or kà
KIS bIs7Ir s7or kà
KPN bIs7Ir s7or kà
KTR bis7Ir s7or kà
KGC bIs7Ir s7or kà
KDR bIs7Ir s7or kà
BBK bis7i s7or kurà
BRK bis7i s7or kurà
URK biës7i sor kurà
ASP bhis7 sào ko5ë
BIP bhis7 s7or ko5ë
PUP bhis7 s7or ko5ë
SSS bis7 pà3j bis7à ko
GWB is7i pV3si7 kVrV
DML bIs7i sào / pà3z7 bIs7i kure
SHK wit_si pot_si keté
KAT vVt_sI put_sé kVt_si
YDG wisto s7or / pànj wist kedi
MNJ bist sVt kOdi
166. what 167. where 168. when

KSW kyàrà kuri kià wVxt
KIS kià kurà kià wVt
KPN ---- ---- kià wVt
KTR kiàG kurà kià wVht
KGC kiàG kurà kià wVt
KDR kiàG kurà kià wVt / kià wVht
BBK ki kVwà kàyo
BRK kià kVwài kàyo
URK ke kVm kài
ASP gVs7e ki kVre
BIP gVs7e kVsV kVre
PUP gVs7e kVsV kVre
SSS kene gVs7ài kàre
GWB kene ki kol
DML kyà kià ker
SHK kor kà kui
KAT kàI kor koi
YDG ---- khu kelo
MNJ ---- ku kFlo
169. how many 170. which 171. this

KSW kànduri kiGVlu hàyà
KIS kànduri kiwàlu hàyà
KPN kànduri kiwàLu hàyà
KTR kànduri kiwàli hàyà
KGC kànduri kiwàlu hàyà
KDR kànduri kiwàli hàyà
BBK kimon kure iV
BRK kimon kurEse iV
URK kVde kure hày
ASP kVti kàyVk ànu3
BIP kVti kàyuVk hànu3
PUP kVti kàyuVk ànu3
SSS keti kodek là
GWB kVtV kVrVk we
DML kVti kErà ye
SHK cok kVt yo ené
KAT cuk gVjIstV3 enI
YDG cVnd kemo / kFdi moh
MNJ cet kiyom mà
172. that 173. these 174. those

KSW àhes hVmi he / het
KIS hEs hVmi hE
KPN hIs ---- hE
KTR hEs hVmIt hEt
KGC hIs hVmit hEt
KDR hIs hàmIt hEt
BBK sE emi Eli
BRK sE emi Eli
URK sE hemi hek
ASP ERo àni àRà
BIP àRo àni àRà
PUP àRo àni àRe
SSS se le se
GWB se yemi te
DML se ye se
SHK iyi VmnV VKgi
KAT iki àmni àmki
YDG wo me woi
MNJ wUrà màe wà
175. same 177. whole 178. broken

KSW ---- ---- cirdu
KIS ---- purà cIrdu
KPN ---- ---- ocite
KTR ---- purà chirdu
KGC bàràbàr purà chirdu
KDR bàràbàr purà cItis7E
BBK bàràbVr tàzà bis7unà
BRK bàrubàr tàzà chinà
URK bàrbàrië tàzà Vcis
ASP àk kIsm sEri poThIli
BIP àk kIsm suru / purà poThIli
PUP àk kIsm suru poThIli
SSS yVk qesim sOro poTez7ilo
GWB yVk s7àn roG foTisVn
DML sàm roG cisàn
SHK ErVnKt_sV --- pVrVKges
KAT erKEst sài / purà pVtiKgusté
YDG bàràbàr pLIk wres7ci
MNJ bàrubàr pVrV àrfos7
179. few 180. many 181. all

KSW kVm bo ---
KIS kVm ziàdV sVf
KPN kVm boh sVf
KTR ikàmà bo sVf
KGC ikàmà / kVm boh / ziàdà sVf
KDR ikàmà / kVm boh sVf
BBK ticVk bo sào
BRK cutyVk bo sào
URK pusuk bo sào
ASP uco biDo buthe
BIP uco biDo buthe
PUP uco biDo buthe
SSS uco càto sàme
GWB kVm ziàth sàf
DML ucà lE sVphVn
SHK cok s7ene sundi
KAT Ecok bVluk t_sVk
YDG kestà Vmbox sVf
MNJ cEt ---- sVf
182. eat 183. bite 184. hungry

KSW z7ibik ---- C7i
KIS ---- oyoi C7ui
KPN z7IpE oyoi ----
KTR z7Ibik oyoi C7uyi
KGC z7ibik oyoi C7hui
KDR z7ibIk oyoi C7ui
BBK z7uk ---- ànorà
BRK z7uk àS7àTo ànorà
URK z7uik àS7àTV ànàrà
ASP khà kholo bucElilo
BIP khe kholo bucElilo
PUP khu khulu bucElilo
SSS khOli khOlo buC7Olo
GWB z7unus t_sepus hVwàté
DML z7inyà ---- VwVthà
SHK yà3 VtVms7io otobisi
KAT yu àTus7ëIo io3
YDG xuRVm xoLo us7yàde
MNJ xVRVm xud us7edVm
185. drink 186. thirsty 187. sleep

KSW pi- ---- ore-
KIS pi- ---- porIs
KPN pi- ---- ----
KTR pi- truS7- ore-
KGC pi- tros7- ure-
KDR pi- trus7- ore-
BBK pi- dàn DuDI-
BRK pi- Dàn DuDi
URK pi- dàin purs-
ASP pi- trIs7- suto
BIP pi- trIs7- suto
PUP pi- trIs7- suto
SSS pi- torc- suto
GWB pi- hàoDà piuwà
DML pi- VwDà kocinà
SHK pi- àupi- s7oyo3
KAT pi- oëpi- prus7-
YDG s7Vm- ---- loGode
MNJ s7om- trus7- ure-
188. lay down 189. sit down 190. give

KSW pàr- nis7- dI-
KIS por- nIs7- prà-
KPN por- nIs7- ----
KTR por- nis7- di-
KGC por- nis7- di-
KDR por- nis7- di-
BBK drVk dE nVs- dE-
BRK drEk dà nis- prà-
URK drEk ji nIs- di-
ASP dre dI- bETo dI-
BIP dre dI- bETo dI-
PUP dre dI- bETo dI-
SSS pàr- bETo di-
GWB DVDV s7V- nis7- de-
DML Dàk prà- nIs7- prà-
SHK pVr- ---- tho-
KAT ci- nIs7- prE-
YDG loGo- niàs- lio-
MNJ xubVm- nIs7- liV-
191. burn 192. die 193. kill

KSW ---- bri- màr-
KIS pàle- obrI- màr-
KPN ---- obrI- màr-
KTR pàle- brI- màr-
KGC ---- bri- mVr-
KDR pàle- bri- màr-
BBK upuwEk nàs7I- nàs7-
BRK upwiEk ànàs7i- nàs7-
URK àkàIs ànàs7I- nàs7-
ASP s7àkà leà mUro màhR-
BIP s7àkà leà mUro màhR-
PUP s7àkà leà mUro màhR-
SSS 3 à jukeile
s7Ok mORo mOr-
GWB los7- miru- màr-
DML luS7- nVs7- z7Vn-
SHK z7Vyà mà- jà3i-
KAT lus7- mŒ‚s† I- jV3i-
YDG gow- muLo- màhsc-
MNJ ---- mVro- mos7k
194. he flew 195. walk 196. run

KSW uli- kosi- de-
KIS uli- kosI- de-
KPN ---- ---- dà-
KTR uli- kosi- de-
KGC uli- kosi- de-
KDR ului- kosi- de-
BBK upul- kàsI- àdyàE-
BRK upul- kàsI- àdyàe-
URK upri- kàsi- àdyài-
ASP Orbi- / urbà- gu3- UtràpIlo
BIP urbi- gu3- UtràpIlo
PUP ubri- gà- UtràpIlo
SSS upre- go- MepIlo
GWB ---- gV- De-
DML ondr- gV- trVpV
SHK undr- go- Vco-
KAT undr- Esté àcu-
YDG wroft Gu- Gàzd-
MNJ us7kyo yo- bVd-
197. go 198. come 199. speak

KSW bi- gi- lu-
KIS bà- ---- rEs-
KPN bo- gI- lu-
KTR bi- gi- lu-
KGC bi- gI- lu-
KDR bi- gI- lu-
BBK pàr- ---- mà-
BRK pàr- à- àmà-
URK pàr- à- mà-
ASP bà- yà- màn-
BIP bà- yà- màn-
PUP bà- yà- màn-
SSS go- wàl- min-
GWB gV- àyV- jV-
DML go- VgV- gà-
SHK go- ozo- gà-
KAT Etu- hVt_sI- wélëV
YDG s7oi VGoi àns7To
MNJ s7oi àGoi roz7i
200. heard 201. see 202. I

KSW kàrà- pos7i- àwà
KIS kàrà- pos7I- àwà
KPN kàrà- ---- àwà
KTR kàrà- pos7i- àwà
KGC kàrà- pos7i- àwà
KDR kàrà- pos7i- àwà
BBK sàKgà- pàs7i- à
BRK sàKgà- ---- à
URK sàKgà- pàs7i- à
ASP S7u3to- / kà3thà- dàcI- mV
BIP S7ut3 o- / kà3tE- dàcI- / dàhE mV
PUP kà3TE dàhE mV
SSS budo dErs7o- mà
GWB s7UD 3 u- bàlu- à3
DML us7tro- dàcyà- ài
SHK sVKgà- wà3yé- V3
KAT séKV- wà3V4 - u3ts_
YDG GoilVt- les7C7- zoh
MNJ GoilEt- lIs7ky- zV
203. you (inf.) 204. you (formal) 205. he

KSW tu bisV se
KIS tu tu hEs
KPN tu tu hIs
KTR tu tu hEs
KGC tu tu hIs
KDR tu tu hEs
BBK tu tu VsV
BRK tu tu àsà
URK tu --- VsV
ASP tu tus ERo
BIP tu tus hàRo
PUP tu tus àRo
SSS tu tusi se
GWB tu me se
DML tu bi se
SHK tu s7o Vgi
KAT twi twi iki
YDG tu tu wo
MNJ tU tU wà
207. we (incl.) 209. you (plural) 210. they

KSW ispà bisV het
KIS Ispà ---- hE
KPN spà tu ---
KTR Ispà pisV hEt
KGC spà pisV hEt
KDR spà pisV hEt
BBK àbi àbi eli
BRK àbi àbi eli
URK àbi àbi tE
ASP bE tus butE ERV
BIP bE tus butE ERV
PUP bE tus butE ERE
SSS Vsi tusi pàk tini
GWB Vmé me temi sàf
DML ài bi sVphVn se sVphVn
SHK mo s7o VKgi
KAT imu3 s7o àmki
YDG mVx mVf woi
MNJ z7ImVn tU wài
212
APPENDIX C
TEXTS
Appendix C.1 Khowar text
KHOWAR, ODIR (TORKHOW VALLEY)
Hunting Story
1. kicà ki hàyà Ispà sVfVnthe pVtV o Is7kàr bo qàdi màr

manner of this we all known (pause) hunting very old for
2. yIri s7Er. wà Ispà ke-ki Z7VKgo roi Vsusi xàskori
long-time is (pause) we of upper-area people are especially
3. odir mVlph bVlài ilàko roi, Is7kàr konih. wà he qIsmV
Odir Mehlp upper territory people, hunting do (pause) this way
4. thàn i dVfV Ispà Is7kVrothe. boGVk-hotVm nIkV àw oci mVh
self one time we for-hunting ready-to-go ? I and my
5. cIro bràr i-biti. nIkV hVte wVje hàte bVce Ispà bo
younger brother become ? that ? that purpose we many
6. Iz7Enàri-Vn teyàr kore lIk hoi. xàskori tuEkVn teyàr kore lik
things-of ready done did it-was especially guns ready done did
7. hoi. hor hàte bVce semàn gànIko zVrurVt hoi.
it-was every that purpose provisions take necessary it-was
8. semànàn gVntVm. gVni hàS7ki filhàl hokumVtho wIltiàr
provisions-of taken taking deer(?) presently government side
9. bVnd-s7ir. hàte GEne dIti kos7tiEn boGV lIk hoi. hàte Gene dIti
prohibited that reason give secretly went did it-was that reason give
10. chuyo surà s7àm-u-thImà bàtIm. bikVr àchi ponà i-z7VGà
night during evening-time went having-gone after on-the-way a-place
11. bVs be lik os7oi. hVterà tortVm o tori hVterà bVs
stop become did it-was there arrived (pause) arrive there stop
12. hotVm. chuci hàs7ki ràGVs7thi àihrupi hVtErà cài-mài bVndubVs
became morning as early to-get-up there tea arrange
Appendix C.1 Khowar Text 213
13. àrtVm. bo ziàt uS7àki os7oi. o cài-mài pi hVtEGàr rVhi

we-did very much cold it-was (pause) tea drink from-there going
14. àrtVm. rVhi kori bo duderi z7àGà boGE lik os7i. kurà ki yàni
we-did going doing very far place go did it-was where of as
15. Ispà umeth os7oi ki hVterà he iz7nàre Vsuni re. hàte GEn
we hope it-was of there this thing(deer) is said that reason
16. dIti bàtVm bi. kewVt ki hVtV jVGV tortVm wà tori bo
give went became when of that place reached and arrive much
17. kus7i-s7àr Vci pos7tàm ki iz7nàri hVtErà pori Vsuni. biko ke-ki
wander-? after saw-it of things there laying is then of
18. fàisàlà korono hoy. lotoro bràr fàisàlà kortài ki Ispà hàyà
decision made became elder brother decision did that we this
19. jàGV bisi. hàmIs7 fàlàn jVgV àtàràsi toriko Vci dVndVr pàsusi.
place go such sort-of place ? arrive(?) after ? ?
20. hài go jàm. hVto luo kàr-kore lik hoy. biko bàtVm bo
came ? good whose idea ?-made did became then went very
21. dudErin kose lik hoy. kosikàr Vci hVte jVGà tortVm tori
long-distace walk did became walking after that place arrived reach
22. hVtEtànte. hVse tuwekEn hVse pestài pEsi-kàr Vci ju-in màrtài. i
all-of-them that gun that fired fired-? then two-of hit one
23. lot os7oi wà i sVxro os7oi màri-kàr. Vci hVtet bo dudEri jàGo
big was and one smaller was hit-? then those very far place
24. GErtVni bo dudEri jàGo GEriko. hàte loto wolthi
fell very far place fell that big-one towards
25. hVse-tàn bài hVse mV-sàr tàjribàkàr os7oi biko hàte
himself(the-one-who-shot) went he me-? experienced was then the
26. t_sexo wolti àwV bàtVm. bikàr Vci kewVt ki àwà hVte jVGà
smaller towards I went went after when of I that place
27. tortàm tVrV jVgV hVse pàr tori hVto
arrived ? place he(elder-brother) there arrive whose
28. hIlàl kori nVsi neIwe. wà mV hàse kià ki
in-the-proper-way killed complete finish and my that(animal) ? of
29. zVxmi biru birài bo ziàt wà hVterà tori-pà hàse àne
injury became became very much and there arrive(?) the(deer) ?
30. mà-serà hVmle korthe. koriko àwà bo boS7titVm wà hIs7-kiàG

me-? attack did having-done I very afraid and I-did
31. koriko no-bithi. Vci hàtVm Vci gIti hVtote ludiko.
having-done not-be then came after come he (elder-brother)
32. filler hVse Vci hài Vci gIti hVterà gIti hVtodi nVsinethài.
told he after came then come there come other finished
33. hVtum-kori hVterà i rVs7thun os7oi, rVs7thuno3 muz7thu pos7ithVm.
having-killed there one snowfield was, snowfield middle-of dug
34. pos7i hVtetVn hVte bVnd-kortVm yàni gVrmiyo. thEm s7ehVr
having-dug them he buried because(?) hot-was time was
35. hàràb bos7Vm hVte bVnd-kori. Ispà thàn kos7tbIti Vci durVt
spoiling they-were that buried we ourself secretly back home
36. hVtVm. biko dur-à gIti horeVnthe luprEtVm hàyà cElbis7Ir.
went then home-of coming many-peoples told this happened
37. Ispà hVmoS7 kor-Vsusi. re-ko dur-àr† roi àhibàni.
we thus did-by-us having-told home-of people go-towards
38. àhibi hVtErà torikVr Vci hVtEtVn gàni cio-sorà. wà
going-towards there arriving then they took night-during and
39. kos7bIti hàni yàni kà hItàn pos7elIk no os7oi. pos7i-ko-sorà
secretly went because anyone them see not was see-do-during
40. hokumVto wVltiàr hVthErnàk. bàos7oi biko coyo-surà hVtet kos7tiàn
government side dangerous ? then night-during they secretly
41. gVni-àlVni. àKgikàr àci hVtetàn boz7i sàf dehote di pràni wà
taking bringing after they divide all village also gave and
42. tàn muz7i yàGo goni oyotàm di.
ouselves middle-of ? together ate also
Free Translation
As we all know, hunting has been done for a long time. We, the people of
the upper area of Odir, Mehlp, especially, do hunting. This is the way we went
hunting one time. My younger brother and I made preperations to go. ? for that
purpose, we prepared many things. Especially the guns were made ready. For
every purpose, the necessary provisions were taken. Provisions were prepared.
Presently the government prohibits taking deer. For this reason we went
secretly. For this reason, we went at night, during the evening. After going on
Appendix C.1 Khowar Text 215
the way, we found a place to stop. When we arrived there we stayed. We got up
early in the morning and we arranged tea. It was very cold. After drinking tea
we left that place. We were going to a place very far away. That place, we
hoped, was where it is said there are these things (deer). That is the reason we
went. When we reached that place, after much wandering, we saw the things
(deer) laying there. Then we made a decision. My elder brother decided the
place to which we should go. We arrive(?) at that place after ? . We went
easily(?). That’s whose idea we acted upon. Then we walked a very long
distance. After walking we arrived at the place where they all were. We fired,
and firing two of them were hit. We hit one that was big and one that was
smaller. Then they fell down a long distance away. He went towards the big
one, (because) he was more experienced than me, then I went towards the
smaller one. As I went and arrived at that place, he (elder brother) he had
already finished killing it in the proper manner. And my animal had a very bad
injury and when I got there it attacked me. Having done that I was very afraid
and couldn’t do anything. Then after he (elder brother) came I told him. He
came there and finished the other one. Having killed it there was a snowfield,
we dug in the middle of the snowfield. Having dug (a hole) he buried them
because it was hot. It was time, they were spoiling when we buried them. We
secretly went back home. When we came home we told many people what had
happened. That is what we did. Having told the people they went that way
(toward the meat). They went there and got it during the night. And they went
secretly because they did not want anyone to see them. Being caught by the
government is dangerous. Then they secretly brought it (deer meat) during the
night. After bringing it (deer meat) they divided it among the whole village and
together we all ate it.
216
Appendix C.2 Yidgha text
YIDGHA, ZHITOR
The Flood
1. dV pàjVn mox yuwisto lVs-wilV lVsyu tàrix dO z7Itor dO z7Itor

on fifth month twenty ten-? eleven date on Zhitor in Zhitor
2. welo yogo VGoi. yogo VlminV Goi ke, nIPdV vio no, yogo
stream flood came flood like-this came that, rain was not, flood
3. tàdidE ikot no ev-ojivEt. serVP dV mis7Vn s7oroi bVjV yogo VGoi,
? ? not ?-looking(?) about at mid-day three hour flood came,
4. pàmàm VdemVP màlum civio ke yogo istVrV. Vdmé dV
? people-of know not-was that flood this-side people at
5. hVrGVP viàt dV wVlo hVlkImIjio càcànVk yogo VGoi. yogo
work were in stream hard-work-doing suddenly flood came flood
6. VGoi xo Vdmé les7cVt ke molo yogo rVsio. z7iVn piro, xyàl
came and people saw that here flood reached there before, think
7. kenVt èeèId jehàz esté wo yogo ci-lescVt. keloko yogo
doing sound(?) airplane heard(?) that flood not-seen when flood
8. VGoi Vdmé rostVt z7VP melVn yu z7iKko dV wolo zVpu
came people run-away them between one woman in stream cloths
9. uzdi-vio wVo Gord s7oi. dV Pàdo wVo xVlVs kVlét wo zindà noGot.
washing she carry did in way she free did she alive came-out
10. bàt zeVn de yogo yu xoro cVnd wVzé yogVn yàye.
after that-from in flood one donkey some goats flood-by carried
11. yogVn moVè wVo pàidV cIkVlV. yogo ke àGoi de dVryà ki
flood killed they find could-not flood that came in river near
12. risi, dV dVryà mVlVn lo àdmI xork kenVd. yu yuo sIGyo
reached, in river between two men work doing one ? sand
13. s7Vz7io, vio yo GVn nowVn drVzài vio. yo drVzVo duGoz
bringing, was one ? ? loading was one loading fellow
14. pVego pV dVrVxt s7oi. pV dVrVxt yogo VsVt s7àmu. wo dir
climbed(?) on tree went on tree flood came(?) ? that other
Appendix C.2 Yidgha Text 217
15. ViGé s7oGo s7iGo wul xo dV pàdo rVsio we yogo molo

coming became sand stream when on way reached ? flood here
16. rVsio. yogo wVo wUl vVdE z7ironVn pV GVr àiGo
reached flood him stream-in caught other-side-of-river at stone came
17. boGo leseèo. bàz7ou3 yeGo bod-s7oi wo mVlà dV dVryà melVn VGoi.
out(?) thrown ? flood closed that place of river middle came
18. xo Vlmin s7oi s7oi skVm vIrVn noGé lVgV Vdmé wVo
then like-this became became ? other-side out lay(?) man that
19. nolVt. Vlmin s7oi yo mVRV bVc s7oi wo dir mVlV dV
? like-this became one man safe became that other place at
20. bVc s7oi.
safe became
Free Translation
It was the thirty-first of May that a flood came to Zhitor in the Zhitor
stream. The flood came like this, there was no rain, there was no evidence(?) to
see. About three o’clock in the afternoon the flood came, the people did not
know that the flood was coming their way. The people were doing hard work in
the stream when suddenly the flood came. The flood came and people saw that
the flood had reached them. Before, we thought we heard the sound of an
airplane, they could not see the flood. When the flood came people were
running out, in the middle one woman was washing clothes in the stream and
she was carried away. Further along she was rescued. After that the flood
carried away a donkey and some goats. The flood killed them and they could
not be found. When the flood came into the river nearby, two men were
working there. One was bringing sand, the other was loading it. The fellow that
was loading climbed up a tree. He was in the tree when the flood came. The
other was carrying(?) sand in the stream, when, on his way, the flood reached
him. The flood caught him in the stream, at the other side of the river he came
out on a stone. At that place the flood caused another stream to be blocked. It
(the water) came up and the man came out on the other side. This is the way
that the man became safe at that other place he became safe.
218
Appendix C.3 Phalura texts
C.3.1 PHALURA, ASHRET
Avalanche near Lowari Pass
1. Vk kàl hàthenu qisà bhilu ki mà dEr weli he3silu de. mVsot

one year this-like story became that I Dir was-in been was masud
2. bVTVliàn-tekàdàrà sàKgi molàzem de. mà tVi Tilifun mà te bhili
contractor with serving was I to telephone me to did
3. zyàrVti ti, ki to teNi ràs7en bVnd the to yV-thVni. jVnwVri
ziaret from, that you own operation close do you came-do January
4. fVrwVri yun de mà màKgà nV bhào3. hVtVyu mà
February month was I remember not is from-there I
5. tIlulV tili pyàdà à biDo kir he3silu de. hVtàyo
start-walking walking by-foot and very snow became was from-there
6. mà tIli gujru3 the rohotVs7nàm tili. tVkribVn àk bVje Temi
I walked Gujar did morning walked almost one o’clock time
7. mà gujru3 pEdulo. gujru3 tV pEdulo tà biDo xVlVqà bVre mànosV
I Gujar reached Gujar to reached to very people loads people
8. he3selà de. se bàrà gini thà yulà-ye. se telelà tà tVnàm
been was they loads took did came-had they start-walk then them
9. sVKgi mà bi tàlilu. tili mosim dVcelo tV mosim biDo
with I also start-walk walking weather looked and weather very
10. xVràb de. sVxt muce de. kir dide biDo kir dide he3selo
bad was hard raining was snow falling very snow falling became
11. de didi de. Etài se xVlàqà dondonà bhIlà ki be beà
was falling was that-place from people thought became that we go
12. ki nV beà thVni. te bà àxeri hVRo rVisVlà thilu ki gobà
or not go became after that last those decide did that what
13. bhilV; tà be biDà mus7V henà, pànj s7o bicà jànà hinà, àse
become; that we many men are, five six twenty body are, we
14. benDeyo. tiNi tài tililà tili pàndV yulà yulà. bVto so mosem
commanded own to walked walk in-way came came after ? weather
Appendix C.3.1 Phalura of Ashret Text 219
15. biDi xVràb bhili. tà àRV-ti màji notVlà. tro

very bad became then some-of-them middle(?) turned-back(?) three
16. bis7à cor bis7 jànV be mojud he3selV de. ti mVjàrà bàDor
twenty four twenty people we ? became was ? ? Bador
17. gào cà he3sVlà de, àse mus7V de. te tVnàm-te mi mVnitu
village ? became was, our people were then them-to I said
18. ki fàisVlà hVà4ot-teyà; ki wàpVs bàyà. tIpà mosem biDi xVràb
that decide will-do; that back will-go now weather very bad
19. hini wàpVs bàyà tVnito. tà tVnim mVnito ki nà bàyà tVnitu.
is back go ? then they said that not will-go ?
20. tVnim biDo zor titi àw mi bi. àRo tilo tà nV bilo nV
they very insist did and I also there walking to not going not
21. bilo. tV mi mVnito ki yVrà mà tà nV bàyà. tVNi mà
going then I said that come I to not will-go ownself I
22. wàpVs tàye noTelo noTi. bàs sVbV yolo. ye ziàrVti tà
back that-place returned return that’s-all night came those Ziaret to
23. tVrVp bi yolo. mà bà du ràt-em, bVs te bhelo bàz,
side also came I went ? night, that’s-all then became that’s-all,
24. te rohotVs7e mosem tro reti ti xVràb de biDi, biDi xVràb
then morning weather three nights did bad was very, very bad
25. bVyàni. wàjà juli mV tro reti gujuro we bVnd bhe he3sulà
became reason ? I three nights Gujar ? trapped became been
26. de. corum disà tà mà wàpVs àRà-te gom, dEr uli-te gom. dEr uli
was fourth day then I back there went, Dir ? went Dir ?
27. be, Tilifun tikàdàrà tà thilo. ki thi we tà Tilifune mà te
go, telephone contractor to did that did ? after telephone I to
28. thili xo mà nV yàye bulo. xo mosem biDi xVràb de, te VRe
did but I not come go but weather very bad was, then that
29. wVjà juli mà wàpVs bholo. à biDà xVlVqà pàrigrà tro cor
reason ? I back became and many people ? three four
30. bis7à jànà pàrigrà yulà. se kVnà bhelà kànà boltà. Tekàdàrà
twenty people ? came they what became what asked contactor
31. mà tà wàpVs Tilifun thili ki, s7o bhilu thi tu nV yulu,
me to back telephone did that, good became was you not came,
32. àse xVlàqà buTe hemeli be. tIpà tene tàlàs7 s7or hine
those people all avalanche go now them search start is
33. pVtà gà bi nV lVge yào. tàni mà te mVnito tV biDo
information any ? not known came of-them me to said ? very
34. mà xVpà bhilo. te mosem s7o sàt reti pVs geVrà mà
I sad became then weather good seven night after ? I
35. tVyu wàpVs yohlo. ye ziàrVti yoholo. tV se xVlàkà: tVkribVn
from-there back came ? Ziaret came ? those people: about
36. cur pànj yunà, jun jolài yunà, te so kir libilo lehelà
four five month, June July month, then ? snow melting find
37. pVtu te tVnàm màhàru pàs7i te unde. te tVnàm àk
information then them-to killed from then from then them-to one
38. àk do do te wià we he3selà de. kene s7IkVl bà màlum
one two two then water water became was whom features we known
39. bhile, kene s7IkVl bà màlum nV bhile. biDà àRe be te
became, whom features we known not became many tries(?) we after
40. tVnàm kàibà nà jeniye DhVKgolà. wàresàno nV jVinài bholà nV
they what not know buried heir not know become not
41. jVinài bhà. tenàm DhVKgolà DhVKge. hVRI mi àk yàdgàri
know become them buried bury that my one remembered
42. kisà de biDà xVlVq àRI bhilà de.
story was very people those became was
Free Translation
One year a story like this happened when I was in Dir. I was working for
Masud Contractor. He telephoned me from Ziaret, and told me to stop the
operation and return. I don’t remember if it was January or February. From
there I started to go on foot and there was a lot of snow. In the morning I
walked from there to Gujar. It was about one o’clock when I reached Gujar.
When I reached Gujar there were many people with loads. They had come
carrying loads. They started to walk so I also started to walk with them. As we
were walking we saw that the weather was very bad. It was raining hard. It was
snowing hard and much snow had already fallen. Then the people began to
wonder if they should go on or not. At last they decided what they would do;
there were many men, a hundred or a hundred and twenty men, we were
ordered. On our own we walked on and on. After that the weather became very
Appendix C.3.1 Phalura of Ashret Text 221
bad. Some of the people had turned back. There were sixty or eighty people
with us. Some of them were from Bador village, and the others were our
people. Then I told them what I had decided to do; that I will go back. Now the
weather was very bad but I was going back. They said that they would not go.
They were very insistant and I was also. I was not going to walk there. I said,
“come, I will not go.” Then I went back from there by myself. I went on until
night. Those people came to the Ziaret side. I went until night, that’s all, then in
the morning, the weather ... for three nights it was bad, it became very bad. For
this reason I was trapped at Gujar for three nights. Then on the fourth day I
went back to Dir. In Dir I telephoned the contractor. “You(?) telephoned me,
but I did not go.” “The weather was very bad, for that reason I came back.”
“Many people, sixty or eighty, came to that side.” I asked, “What happened to
them?” The contractor called back and said, “It was good that you did not
come, all those people were caught in an avalanche.” The search began for
them, nothing more was known. When he told me what happened to them I
became very sad. The weather became good after seven nights and I came back
from there. I came to Ziaret. Concerning those people: after four of five
months, in June or July, then when the snow was melting signs were found,
how they were killed. Then one or two were found in the water. Some of them
we knew by their features, some of their features were not recognized. They
were trying to recognize them before burying them. Their heirs could not
recognize them. They were buried. This is the story I remember. That’s what
happened to many people.
222
C.3.2 PHALURA, BIORI
The Avalanche and Hunters
1. tVkribVn unis so tre-hVtVr-e Vk GVm-nàk wVqeV mà

about ninteen hundred three-seventy-of one sad-? story I
2. yàd thànu. mà eskuli sVbVk mVnàm dE, fVrwVri yun
remember doing I school education study was, february month
3. dE. Vsàm te xVbVr phedeli ki bihuRi s7Ikàr bIbV. xVlVkV
was we to message arrived that Biori hunt they-went people
4. himeli giyV thEni. moxV zVmàne, Vse VlekV s7IkurV jhuli gV
avalanche went did before time, our area hunt on-to any
5. xàs pàbVndi nV he3sàli. kir dE ziyàt kir dItu sindo hEwàndV
special restriction not was snow was very snow fell wet winter
6. xVlikV bEm dE. dis7-e xVlVkV bolV-di o Itifàq thE duwà-e
people went was village-of people spoke-gave and unity do pray-for
7. xer thE. Is7kàr bem dE. gir càpEr dVndà ghVs7i
peace did hunt gone had go-around surrounding mountain ?
8. mirgV meji gVli meri bà. tVxsim thE whàlEn dE. hVtàyu
deer between surrounded kill go divided did brought had ?
9. phVnte xVlVqV giyà Is7kàr giyà Is7kàr bà. himeli turi bhilV dE.
path people went hunt went hunt go avalanche under became had
10. gos7i turi Vk DVbi we himàl wVhài-bà. tru càr jVnà
Goshi under one Dabi in avalanche fall-go three four people
11. tVkribVn bVc bhilV, o tru jànV himeli giyà kVre gV
about safe became, and three people avalanche went when any
12. lV bem dei-u IskulI xVbVr bewo pVrV giyà-tà. o
found will-go from-? school message go there went-having and
13. hVr goS7TV s7iTi rowVnV. GVm hinu, bIRV xVlVkV pres7àn hInà. o
every house inside weaping sad are, ? people worry is and
14. kVre gV le tVbà koju-lVte pVtV Gugàl ki. Vk tV rVhVmVt
when any found there asked-? information ? ? one of Rahamat
15. wVli, Vk bV àhmVd xàn, o Vk bV hàs7Vm xàn, se tru
Wali, one ? Ahmad Khan, and one ? Hasham Khan, those three
Appendix C.3.2 Phalura of Biori Text 223
16. hImeli bibV moRV. o be kVbrus teni te giyV kVbVr kons7olo.

avalanche ? killed and we graveyard own to went grave dug
17. te Vk àwVl Vk wehelIlu tes dVfVn thilu. te bV dowi
Then one first one put-in him bury did Then we second
18. wehelIlu tes bVtV dVfVn thilu. te bV trVye moRe bVtV wehelIlu
put-in him ? bury did Then we third dead ? put-in
19. tes bVtV dVfVn the. be-nisV nikàtV tà tVkribVn màxVm bhilu.
him ? bury did we-all free became about evening became
20. o VRo Vse dis7-e Vk xàs wàqeV àlo pVto tVkribVn
and this our village-of one special story this information about
21. mVjmui tore tIpànti Is7kàr bi bVn. o tipV Is7kàr nV thànV
collectively until now hunt we stopped and now hunt not doing
22. ke-ke xVlVkV bhes7o-hV bhVmV. o duhei bV hukmVtie
because people settled(?) become and second matter government
23. wes7kiàr bi pànbVndi heni. o tipV àne zImàne hVsV kirV bi nV
ruling too restriction are and now this time that snow too not
24. dànV. o moxàk kirV beDu zIyàd den-de. o xVlki me
falling and before snow very much fallen-had and people in
25. s7oG bi he3seli dE. mVsrufiyVt bi biDi zIyàt nV he3seli dE.
interest too been had busy-ness too very much not been had
Free Translation
I remember a sad story from about ninteen seventy-three. I was studying
in school, it was the month of February. A message came to us that (some
people from) Biori went hunting. The people were carried away by an
avalanche. Before, there was not any restriction on hunting. There was snow,
much snow fell, it was wet and winter when the people went. The people of the
village were called and together prayed for peace. They had gone hunting. They
circled the mountain, surrounded the deer and killed them. It had been divided
and brought. Going on the path the people went on hunting. They had been
swept away by an avalanche. Below Goshi at Dabi the avalanche fell. About
three or four people became safe, and three people went in the avalanche. When
anything was found, at school we got a message, and we went there. And there
was weeping in every home. It was sad, the people were worried. And when we
found someone we got the information. One Rehmat Wali, one Ahmed Khan,
and one Hashim Khan, these three were killed in the avalanche. And we went to
our graveyard and dug graves. We took the first one and put him in the grave
and buried him. Then we took the second and put him in the grave and buried
him. Then we took third and put him in the grave and buried him. We finished
at about evening time. This was a special story about our village and how we
hunted collectively until now that we have stopped. And now we are not
hunting because people have become more settled(?). And the second reason is
that the government has restricted it. And at this time snow is not falling. And
before very much snow had fallen. And people had been very interested in it
(hunting). They were not so busy.
225
C.3.3 PHALURA, PURIGAL
Difficulties on Lowari Pass
1. mV àj unàtis tVrixiye Vno teNi Vk kIsà yVni ke nVs7Vr

I today twenty-nine date my own one story means that telling
2. thVno teNi zVbe nijoli mi lohkero boru, nVm keràm udin
is own language in my younger brother, name Keram Udin
3. de, tVs fVlejie-lehezi yVni tVs gVs7ilu de. tV àndo yV mV
was, he illness means he became-ill was then from came I
4. tVs gini-gàu cVtrulV. cVtrulV hVri DVktVrV pVs7ulu. DVkTVrV mVnitU,
he carried Chitral Chitral in doctor showed doctor said,
5. ki nes gVni bVh pexVwVr-tV. pexVwVr-tV hVr tVnitutV mV tVs
that ? carry ? Peshawar-to Peshawar-to take told I him
6. gIn pi àI e TikVT ghInu. pi Vi e bhEs7i tVs gIni-gàU pexVwVrV-tV.
carry P I A ticket bought P I A sat him carry Peshawar-to
7. pexVwrV hVri DVktVr bVs7ir VhmVdV pVs7ulu. yVni hVDe dVktVr
Peshawar took doctor Bashir Ahmed showed means bones doctor
8. de hVso tVs pVs7VUlu-tV. so yVni ke du yun-oku elVj
was he him show-to he means that two month-? treatment
9. bVndVyVlo. gobV goliV-moliV s7VrbVk-mVrbVk tVs ditu. du yun
commanded some tablet syrup him gave two months
10. pVdus7e àThe tENe thào. pVt-mVtE sIwI s7erpàow hVspVTeli, tVu
after bring own to returned looked(?) Sherpao hospital, then
11. tVs pVtrà leDI reDeK VTIlu. VTi tru rEt yVnI le4D
him returned Ladi Reading brought brought three nights means Lady
12. rInDIK. gF tEs-e s7àD-màD wVGerV hVtenàm detV. gV Thik
Reading some him-to injection treatment(?) to-him gave some good
13. bhemi gV kunz7yàes7 nV bhile nV bhile. tV piVdV mV
becoming some chance not become not become then by-foot I
14. tVs gVni rVhi thilo. lije de ukVi dir-V ukàtu. dir-V
him carry footsteps did from-there was came Dir-to coming Dir-to
15. ukVtu tV dir-V hoTVli bàs ditu. bVs de musem xVrVb de
came then Dir-to hotel night spent night was weather bad was
16. muce de. sintV Vk mVzdur mV teNi sVKge genu. tV bàs de

rain was then one laborer I own with took then night was
17. ros7i bhele tV mVzdur teNe sVngi geni pIyVdV. mV lijE
morning became then laborer own with took by-foot I from-there
18. de ukVtu àghV muce de kir dide. àur lije de lVwriV
was come sky rain was snow falling and from-there was Lawori
19. TekV yulo. lVwuri TekV yVyi cVi pelu hoTVli Vk du pVilV cVi
Top came Lawori Top came tea drank hotel one two cups tea
20. pili. tVu nisVtV nikeyà àni dus7e làKgelu-tV s7VzdV mVhudin
drank then ? came-out that side crossed-to Prince Mahudin
21. yVni mI muxV dVs7i yulu. yVyi so mà tV mVnitu mosem xVràb
means my front side came came he me to said weather bad
22. bini, nVgV himàl wi, tu nV bV àni, we tu dendVR
is, beware avalanche flow, you no go here, flow you will-fall-down
23. yà gubV beR. tVnitu tV mV mVnitu nV xer xodVi te
or some will-become when to I said no problem God of
24. hVwàlV. tE mV-hV tào-lVkàr tVs gini wVhVtu. wVheli
winter(?) then I-? from-there him took sliding(?) sliding(?)
25. tiwe de muce de hVtà kà wVheli pàndV wVheli. hVsu
from-there was raining was that of sliding way sliding that
26. mVzdVr bi pVturVk bhelu. yVni wVx nV wVx de mVzdur
laborer also return(?) became means time not time was laborer
27. pVri VTi he3sulu de. mV teNi sVKgi somV teh mVnitu ki mi
return bring became was I own with to-me ? said that I
28. VRo wVpVs bVyni teh mi pVn beDu dhurV, tu VndoyV bonte
there back going ? my way very far, you from-there down
29. kelVi bV Vur mVbV VRo tVm VndoyV wVpVs bVm. tVnitV mà
alone go and I there from here back go from-there I
30. tVs geni wVhVtu ziyàrVte ziyàrVte yVyi. hoTVle yVyi cVi pilu
him carried came Ziaret Ziaret came hotel came tea drank
31. tà goli-mUli kulu. teNi zànte thilu. dobVlV-moblV mi biRu sinzi
then food ate own warm did clothes my very wet
32. he3silV. sVx tVklif de tFrtE di he3sVlu de.
become-had difficult trouble was fording(?) other became was
Appendix C.3.3 Phalura of Purigal Text 227
33. hVtVwude, hVtV guli-muli kulu cVi mVi pilu pili. hVtV
therefore, there food ate tea I drank drank there
34. bVDVr-Vn wVtàn-dVrà he3selV. hVtInàm sVKgi mVs7qul bhilu
border-police our-area-fellows were there-from with difficult became
35. betV. jip-mip mIlàw bhili hVtizE de, yVni rutV màohustVn
going jeep got became from-there was, means night dinner-time
36. de, màUstVniV tàow rVhI thilo. oDhàl-moDhàl wehi he3sVli
was, dinner-time from-there start became flood came became
37. de wVhi pVnd mind bis7i. sàz nV de xVràb hVneNi de. biRi
was came way closed was okay not was bad like was very
38. tVklifi juli lije de okVi de drus7V hoTVli phedVlu. drus7V
trouble with there-from was came was Drosh Hotel reached Drosh
39. hoTVli wVhi bonu wVhi. VhVse rVtV-reti mV tVs geni DutV
hotel came down came that night I him took from-there
40. li-pVrV de. yulu yVyi VzordVmV pVrV kelVyi ràt de. lVwo
came was came came Azordum on alone night was there-from
41. yVyi s7is7iyV yulu s7is7iyV yVyi. miso yàni miso loko bru
come Shishi came Shishi came I means my younger brother
42. mVde kojulu tV mV kVsV hVrVnu. mV yàni ki mV tu gos7tV tV
said asked you me where carrying I means that I you home to
43. hàràmu. te jedeh VndV ukelu VndV. ukheli gos7tE phEdu s7is7yV
carrying then ? here came here came village arrived Shishi
44. phEdulI s7Is7yE phEdul. tV bI yVni ki màos yàni ràt
reached Shishi reached then also means that ? means night
45. brVbVr de. hVtV tVs gini bàs ditu. bàs de ros7i
different(?) was there he came night gave night was morning
46. bheni tVs gVni VndV ukVt. VndV ukeiy Vk yun yVni
became to-him took-with here came here came one month means
47. tVse elVj sIlu. yunV di bàd yVni xudiV àmUr xUdàI tV se
him treatment did month of after means God this-like God to us
48. diti àmà nV gIsini yVni Vsàm di gào.
gave we not take means we from ?
Free Translation
Today on the twenty-ninth I am telling a story in my own language. My
youger brother, whose name was Keram Udin, caught a disease. From here I
carried him to Chitral. In Chitral I showed him to the doctor. The doctor said,
“Take him to Peshawar.” I said I would take him and I bought P.I.A. tickets. I
went with him on P.I.A. to Peshawar. I took him to Peshawar and showed him
to Dr. Bashir Ahmed. It was an orthopedic doctor I showed him to. He advised
a two month treatment. He was given some tablets and syrup. After two months
I brought him home. I returned and checked(?) at Sherpao Hospital, then I
brought him to Lady Reading (Hospital). He was in Lady Reading for three
nights. He was given some injection treatment. There was no chance of his
getting better. Then by foot, I carried him, retracing our steps. From there I
went to Dir. We came to Dir and spent the night at the Dir Hotel. After the
night the weather was bad and it was raining. Then I hired a laborer. After
night, in the morning, I set off by foot with the laborer. As we were going the
sky was raining and snow was falling. From there we came to Lowari Top. At
Lowari Top we drank one or two cups of tea at the hotel. Then we went out and
crossed to the other side we met Prince Mahudin, we came to our side. He came
to me and said, “The weather is bad. Be careful there is an avalanche, you
should go from here, you might get caught in the flow (avalanche), or
something will happen.” I said there would be no problem with winter
conditions. I went from there pulling him. We were sliding along from there, it
was raining. The laborer also wanted to go back. There was not time for the
laborer to return from there. He said to me that “I am going back, I have a very
long way to go,” “You will go down from here alone and I will go back.” I took
him with me and went to Ziaret. We went to the hotel, drank tea and ate food.
We warmed ourselves. Our clothes had become very wet. It had been a great
difficulty fording things to get there. Therefore, we ate food and drank tea
there. The border police there were from our area. Going with them from there
it became difficult going. We got a jeep there, it was night about dinner time,
after dinner time we started. There was a flood and the way was closed. It was
not good, it was bad like this. It was with great trouble that we reached the
Drosh Hotel. We came through the Drosh Hotel. We went on through the night
from there. We came alone to Azordum in the night. From there we went to
Shishi. My younger brother asked, “Where are you carrying me?” I said, “I am
carrying you home.” Then we came here. We came to the village and we
arrived at Shishi. We got there at night. We stayed there for the night. In the
morning I took him and came here. When we came here we did the treatment
for one month. After a month, it is like this, as God gives we do not take, we
get from him(?).
229
Appendix C.4 Sawi text
SAWI, SAU (AFGHANISTAN)
Death of Father
1. leNi Ek wVxt bete, wàleni tV wVxto mà lào àlo. tVnu

this-like one time was, this-like that time I young was my
2. bàbi simili càlusi Vlo bàne. Ek du mus7àRe wàle, du mus7àRe
father with goats to meadow one two thieves came, two thieved
3. wàle, lEno s7e àlo yEmi. me bàbi lVy-Vki ges7elo. càlo3Te
came, this-like ? was ? my father one-to caught goats
4. wàlVle. làe Vk jEni dimi bàbi yo3 gEs7iloye. se tVbi eTe
were-coming ? one man my father by caught he other one
5. meno yoV mVlV moS7 ERià xlàste te. tVsVrà te tobVkun diti,
said ? ? man ? free do he from gun shot,
6. tobVkun yon ditie mi bàbi màrelo. màrelo tàe joe tV
gun from shot my father killed died-after that place from
7. màidone cole me bi. dVhrilo màl bi dVhrili. s7oko xVlVq
? goats I went left livestock also left wood people
8. àle tenoTi mi s7àKg-eRilo. s7àKg-eRilo yu mi bàbe màr. tini
were them-to I call-did call-did that my father killed they
9. gVrà3 me xVbVr diti. gVrà3 mi te xVbVr diti. gVrà3 mà
home my message gave home in was message gave home my
10. xVlVq wàle hERo màRàyàlo heRio xVx tilo. càlibi càlebio ce mi
people ones there dead-body took-there bury did goats goats ? my
11. màl bidyà dàhrili xos7e dVhrili. giri se liNi wVxte eli yo
livestock meadow left alone left that it this-like time was that
12. be làoyà le. nV càlo3 pItedid wà nà lemIri tV no zImièàreT
we young was not goats reached ? not could that not farming
13. peèi ne buVnVle. zImidàràTe uTV nV lebo jo bànà-se ne-bà
reach not able farming do not became if meadow-to not
14. nVlo. bàne tV uTà nVlebo gos7V se ne-bV nàlo. no Vso3 rVte
able meadow to do able home it not able ? we on
15. leNo dVwràn bIthe wàlVn. tVdo3 pVtkyom leNo meràbàni te

this-like time also came that after this-like kindness of
16. xodVi, nomedio3 zàrbomno cVTi geni mehràbàni àsàrVte xodVi geni.
God, name-from sacrificed very many kindness on-us God gave
17. se àsi bàbo yVk àlo be MV brV uàle, xo MV ménji
that our father one was we three brothers were, but three between
18. tepi. leNo3 meràbàni te se du leRe hine mV ghVnero hino.
now this-like kindness do that two young are I elder am
19. tV wVxtà3 tVnu mVrVsV ne-hàle. tepe xo s7okure nàm be tà nom
that time own help not-able now but thanks name ? ? ?
20. ràsà de sere rene. kàco bio bàlo bi pionàne. pionàne mVsVd
? ? ? ? bad also good also know know ?
21. lVnE oyo se bohàge. bio se dVoràm kodé kVloi ter Ibi
this-like ? that days-spent also that time days that passed ?
22. de. tVse dio3 pVt kyàNi neRo s7Vi teyo3. se hVrgV dIhErilo
was our days after ? there-like work did that anything left
23. beyewo lVde dui some betene. dui some yà3m beTene làde
became here other country set-in other country are sat here
24. biTe bITVno càTo Vtyàte sVrV rVhme sVrV. bVyd cVlye sàtànu cVluke
sat sit very carefully with kind with ? passed own passed
25. bàge bio tVpu-ke bi pàk sVnjVwVl tiye, mVxsVd se3 bàge
days also now-? we always compare do, meaning that days
26. kudI-kàle tini bio limibi, cVTi tVpV wàteni tVGir bio tVp
which-were our these days, very now area different and now
27. dilimez7io. xo mVtlVb lVhe noyo3 s7ukuro hInu tVfIl, cor pànj pUM tUm
? but means this is thanks are ? four five sons ?
28. bàbo se me brV hino. cor pànj mi hene leNo meràbàni
father that my brother are four five my are this-like kindness
29. teyo3 le gVnebile bo.
did that grow-up became
Free Translation
It was like this one time, at that time I was young. I went with my father
and goats to the meadows. One or two thieves came, two thieves came, it was
Appendix C.4 Sawi Text 231
like this. My father caught one of them. The goats were coming. My father
caught one man. The other man said that he should let that man go free. He shot
and killed my father with his gun. After he died, I left that place. I left the
livestock. There were some wood-cutters that I called to. I called to them (and
said) that my father was killed. They sent a message to my home. The message
was given in my home. People from my home got the body and buried it. I left
my goats and livestock alone in the meadow. It was like this at that time, when
I was young. I could not go to my goats and could not go to my farming. If I do
farming, then I cannot go to the meadows. If I go to the meadows, I cannot care
for my home. A time like this came upon us. After that it was the kindness of
God, I gave myself to the name and kindness of God. Our father was one and
we are three brothers, but there are three of us now. This is the kindness that
two are younger and I am the elder. At that time we were not able to help
ourselves. But now, thankfully, ?. We are able to know what is good and bad.
We have spent the days like this. Such is the way we spent our days. After
those days we did work. We left everything and came here and we sit in another
country. We are sitting here in another country, we are careful and grateful. If
we compare the days passed with the present days, I mean the the way things
were and these days, there is a great difference in our area. We are thankful my
brother has four or five sons. I have four or five who are kind, they have grown
up.
232
Appendix C.5 Kalasha text
KALASHA, KRAKAL (BUMBORET VALLEY)
Dog Bite Story
1. à goS7t-unà pài àis. goS7t-unà pài àis C7àS7à-Eri doà

I barn-to going was barn-to going was cheese-ADJ package
2. oInIm-dài ghoi. tàrào s7o3à3. wàwà à-àw. wàwà à-àw
bring-ing saying there dog grandfather came-he grandfather came-he
3. e, s7o3à3 àgri-s. à àgri-s. se s7o3à3 mài àbràl-àw. àbràl-àw
when, dog grabbed-I I grabbed-I that dog me bit-he bit-he
4. e wàwo pài dukur-ày àt-àw. dukur-ày àt-àw e à to
when grandfather go shed-in at-he shed-in at-he when I that
5. s7o3à3 gri, tàrà ni àbon-is. àbon-is e, tàrà àpàw-pr-àw.
dog grab, there taking tied-I tied-I when, there rest-put-he
6. wàwo pài dukur-ày nisà-àw. nisà-àw e, s7o3à3 bonio
grandfather going shed-in sat-he sat-he when, dog tied
7. s7o3à3-às p-à4ë. p-à4ë. sIzàyà hàw-àw. Ek ghVntà s7o3à3
dog-DAT hit-I hit-I unconscious became-he one hour dog
8. bIlkul àDuD-àw. Ek ghVnt-àni s7o3à3 us7ti VndiàL-ày jVgà-àw.
completely slept-he one hour-from dog get-up around-in looked-he
9. Vndiàl-ày jVgàyà-i, mày lui drVz7n-imàn às7is, mài to lui
around-in looking-did, my blood come-out-ing was, my that blood
10. àpàs7-àw. pàs7i se s7o3à3 làc-unà àpàw-pr-àw. àpàw-pr-àw, e à
saw-he seeing that dog shame-in rest-put-he rest-put-he, when I
11. trupài àu oni pr-à tàsà àu oni tàsà pr-à. àu
hurting food bringing gave-I to-him food bringing to-him gave-I food
12. ni às7-àw àde wàt. nI às7-àw e, à gIri tàrà hài pr-à
take eat-he long time take ate-he when, I again there taking gave-he
13. pr-à bo wàt-àno às7-àw to àu às7-àw e, tàL-ey tàro
gave-he much time-for ate-he that food ate-he when, there-from there
14. pài wàwà kày mày mày s7o3à3 àbràl-àw goi tàsà sum mon
go-to grandfather to me my dog bite-he told him with talk
Appendix C.5 Kalasha Text 233
15. pr-à mon pr-à e, se àu z7ui, mày bàzà àbon-ime. bàzà

gave-I talk gave-I when, that food eat, my arm tied-we arm
16. àboni à phàto chàk pr-àw e C7àS7à àstIgi o-mi. ità
tie I then shadow put-he when cheese bearing came-we come
17. gromo nI ità, ucàw às7is. ucàw-nà C7àS7à
village taking come, Uchaw-festival it-was Uchaw-festival-in cheese
18. às7-imi C7àS7à màS7à z7ui ràt nàt àrVn. làbE4
were-we cheese etc eat night dance did-this play-music
19. hàw-Vn. màià bàzà trupài làbE4 ne àbà-is. purà ràt
happened-they my arm hurting play-music not able-I all night
20. moc ucàw luz7-unà z7à ucàw àr-àn. prus7
people Uchaw-festival morning-to until Uchaw-festival did-they good
21. nàt àràn kàlàs7à moc. ào mày bàzà trupà-àw. ào purà
dancing did-they Kalasha people I my arm hurt-it I all
22. ràt bàzà trupài nàt kàrik ne àbà-is. ucàw nàsi
night arm hurting dance do not able-I Uchaw-festival ?
23. drVZ7n-àw. s7àsàmi là bàyà.
emerge-it it dear brother
Free Translation
I was going to the barn. I was going to the barn thinking that I would
bring the cheese. There was a dog there. Grandfather came. When grandfather
came, I grabbed the dog. I grabbed (him). That dog bit me. When he bit,
grandfather went into the shed. When he went into the shed, I grabbed the dog,
took him there and tied him. When I tied him, there he stayed. Grandfather sat
down in the shed. When grandfather sat down, I tied the dog and beat him. I
beat him. He passed out. The dog slept for a whole hour. After an hour the dog
got up and looked around. Looking around, I was bleeding, he saw my blood.
Seeing that, the dog was ashamed. He remained silent, then I, hurting, brought
and gave him food. I brought him food. He ate for a long while. When he took
and ate, again and again I gave food and he ate a long time. When he ate the
food, I went from there and told grandfather that my dog had bitten me. I told
him, he ate the food, and we bandaged my arm. I bandaged my arm then at
sunset we brought the cheese. I came to the village taking (the cheese), and it
was Uchaw festival. Feasting, they danced through the night. They played
music. My arm was hurting so I was not able to play music. All night, until
morning, the people celebrated the Uchaw festival. The Kalasha people danced
well. As for me, my arm was hurting me. As for me, all night my arm was
hurting and I could not dance. That’s how the Uchaw festival was. That’s it
dear brother.
235
Appendix C.6 Dameli text
DAMELI, ASPAR
A Trip Over Lowari Pass
1. àyà tV pexVwVr àgem. pexVwVrV tVrV skul mV tri. ley wVx

here at Peshawar I-came Peshawar there school my three much time
2. bVi tVrV. nàt_sVp bimàr bom. bimàr bVi trV tV wVpVs
LOC there suddenly sick became sick became there at return
3. mVrgVri mu3 giyV àge giyV t_si lVwori TVp wie bumà. lVwori
companion my bring came bring ? lowari top there became Lowari
4. TVpV mVrgVri mili gàDi tV nVgumV. nVgi
Top companion together-with streams at arrived from-there-on-foot
5. wàpVs ràt_si binà fVn tV bVrfikI prVz7VrmV. nimà fVn tV
return from-there fear path on ice sick-became half way on
6. prVz7Vri. pre mVrgVri tV màs7V xVbVre3-ki grVm bVi àgV. ài
sick start companion at people to-give-news village LOC came I
7. bV tVrV dui z7Vn prVz7VrisVn. otinumV. oti ek trVki
became there two people had-become-sick I-got-up ? one old
8. Dokri yàn nVtinumV. nVti trV ret nVt_sVp bVs7 pre
cottage inside went-inside inside three night suddenly rain at-that-time
9. kir nVgV. kir prVi àmV bVn-koriyV. bVn-kori prVi
snow fall-down snow at-that-time we blocked blocked at-that-time
10. VKgVr kori mV gVni dVro-ki bàrVn nesomV. nesi kir nVm
fire did my wood bring-do outside went-out gone-out snow ?
11. mV-tV kVti, dVs7VmV te Œ‚†C7 nVm sà3 kàN àt_sIm-bV. kàN
here-there looking, saw then bear ? its sound came sound
12. àt_sIm-bV. te pre bine bertV ànàti koki-numV. koki
came then at-that-time afraid returned inside lay-down sleep
13. zVmVn bà-te. berfVki bàràn nesomV. bàràn nesomV te Ite
little has-become snow outside went-out outside went-out then ?
14. ki Œ‚†C7 nVm sà3 VwVs àt_sembV. te kyà àn nVti s7Vlà
to bear ? whose sound came then to ? inside cold
15. ros7tVli TuTuki rà3zem. rà3zi nim-ret bui-tVi grVm tV

night-time ? shivering shivering midnight shouting village of
16. màs7 àgen àt_si. prei te àgen te ài te rohV-bumV.
people arrived come at-that-time of arrived of I of became-healthy
17. sek mV mVrgéri keràtV se bimàr bV. bimàr bV
next my companion who he sick became sick became
18. tVstV-leDV kuremV. ài bVs piàdVl yede mile nimài
carried-on-back did I slowly on-foot go together-with half
19. fàntV bi prVz7Vrum prVz7Vri tVrV tV mu bV tV leDV kormV.
the-way on sick-became sick there from I ? of load did
20. leDV kori gigE àkeTi tVni ben tVnV webomV. tVnV
load did brought together-with in-this-way forest place arrived place
21. webVi. prei kiyV bV tVni ye dVdi-sV tuni
arrived at-that-time which became in-this-way this parents their-own
22. brà-su wVtVn tV màs sVti. s7umo xVn tV bertV gigEn
brothers country of people gathered Shumo Khan of returned brought
23. tVnV. prei gIngi wegemV. gIngi wewà dVcimà le màs7
place at-that-time ? ? ? ? saw many people
24. tVrV àKgàr ko nisVn weci. tVrV tV bon ye-de màlogus7V
there fire did sat ? there from below gone-having Malogusha
25. ki webumà. màlogus7V ki we tVrV kVnV màs7 tVrV
to arrived Malogusha to arrived there amount people there
26. sotun. tVrV fàr ye-deh mà ek z7àmi-tàtV tV sunà cài
gathered there after gone-having my one in-laws-parents of ? tea
27. pinumà. cài pinumà fàr ye-deh tVrV tV tàme piàdVle
drank tea drank after gone-having there from their-own by-foot
28. tunVgi. phàr ye-deh dVcinumV. pre tVnV tVrV
going-down after gone-having looking-around from-then place there
29. ti ek kVti mudV bVi-te rohbumà bertV. rohobEr
were one how-much days later feeling-better returned feeling-better
30. trV mVs bVi se mVnorV pre mu ki kowV koryVn.
three months LOC it between from-then me to engagement did
31. kowV kori tVrV te se kowV mVnorV ti cor mVs
engagement did there of it engagement between were four months
Appendix C.6 Dameli Text 237
32. bVs. bErtV àrewàn pexVwVr we pexVwVre tV eskulV dVxelV

that’s-all returned ? Peshawar ? Peshawar at school admission
33. korVm. dVxelV kori eskul mVtri tàkribVn pànc mVs bVs
did admission done school read about five months that’s-all
34. Imtehàn prVtemV. ImtehànV pre ImtehànV pàs bVi
examination given examination given examination passed became
35. sVrTifikeT gi àt_si bertV àgemV.
certificate took ? return came
Free Translation
I came here to Peshawar. I was there at school three...there for a long

time. Suddenly I became sick. When I became sick I prepared to travel with my
companion back there. Bringing our things we arrived at Lowari Top. I arrived
at the streams at Lowari Top with my companion. We turned back due to fear
of the ice on the path and I became sick. When we were halfway I became sick.
My companion had to go to the people at the village to tell them to come. When
I got there two people had become sick. I got up. I went up to go into an old
cottage. We stayed inside for three nights when suddenly the rain turned to
snow falling down. When the snow started we were blocked in. Being blocked
in I needed to bring wood and make a fire. I went outside. I went outside in the
snow and was looking around, I saw a bear and I heard it. I heard it. Then I
became afraid and went back inside and lay down. I slept a little while. I went
outside in the snow. Then I went out looking(?) for the bear I heard. At night-
time it became cold inside, we were shivering. Shivering at midnight, I heard
the shouting of the people from the village as they came. When they arrived I
became healthy. Next it was my companion who became sick. He became sick
and was carried on the back. I went slowly on foot with them, half way there I
became sick. Being sick, I was carried from there. I was brought on a back. In
this way, going together, we arrived in the forest. We arrived in that place. In
time we came to our own country, to our own people. Shumo Khan brought us
back to that place. At that time ? we saw many people there sitting at a fire.
Going down from there we arrived at Malogusha. When we arrived at
Malogusha there were some people gathered there. Having gone there I drank
tea with my in-laws. After drinking tea, going down from there, they went by
foot. As we were going down we were looking around. Then, at that place, after
many days our health returned. I had been feeling better for three months when
I became engaged. I got engaged there and was engaged for four months, that’s
all. I returned to Peshawar. At Peshawar I got admitted into school. Having

been admitted to school, I studied for about five months, that’s all, then the
examination was given. The examination was given and I passed the
examination and got a certificate, then I returned.
239
Appendix C.7 Eastern Kativiri text
EASTERN KATIVIRI, BARGROMATAL

(AFGHANISTAN)
War in Nuristan
1. Œ†stV mUthéstUkh sErguzEs7t. E zor je nusVthE

my short story-my-happened one thousand and nine-hundred
2. tErEtsoS7tits risVvi sEtà3 kà vVltVce komunistono dàod
seventy-eight since-Jesus in-that-year which-is time-in communists Daud
3. psur kudetO kVti. mErwor bVduwi àwE4tà u3ts stIvIlthà
against overthrew did kings-rule in-hand having-taken me in-that-time
4. kàbUl àfGVnistVn Isté visOrEt dOxilV thV mOmur Vsio3m.
Kabul Afghanistan for ministry interior in worker clerk
5. komUnistono pimis7 VtsIstE mE3 Vmikio mE3 zéré EpUr né EsistE
communist control coming with them with heart united not have
6. bVdyuk. U3ts kudyum pàtIti. Œ†sté tot wo gul tà nu3rIstàn
for-that me work left my father grandfathers area into Nuristan
7. àyoso3m. Vtkidi komunist hOkumVt tà tEti. u3ts
came there-is-also communist givernment into for-that me
8. nVlusV gulé pàtEti pàkistàn guwosom. osté psE3 siptEmbVr
for-this-reason area left Pakistan went that year September
9. mos Isté oxEri wEl tV V3ts imu3 gul tà jIhàd objiti
month at end time in-was me our area in-was holy-war began
10. pVlEkV bugul àyosu3m. imu bugul Œ†s7kutumbo komunist hOkumVt
again in-area came our area-in I-saw communist government
11. pOrIstà34 bVluk dégVrwVr bisio. bVluk tà4Emu je kruje
from-that alot bad-things happened alot houses and farms
12. bàmbori kVti nVs7isiV. bVlyuk mVns7I di jŒ‚†isiV. kVlé di
by-bombing did layed-down alot people also were-killed war also
13. VstépiVl bVluk kVRwo kVti Vsio. un di Imusté mujàhàdin
like-that alot powerful did was me also our freedom-fighters
14. mE E4por bosIm. imu ErKE bràso wVr kVti. Emkyo mE
with joined did we together brothers like did them with
15. s7yosémIs7 Vtkyu stIjàitàmi i bVlyuk bràso itàu3 s7àhid

fighting there in-that-place me alot brothers in-front-of-me martyred
16. bulé vVreV3. imu s7u màsà pturE4 Vmkyo mE3 kVlé
happening I-saw we six months continuously them with fighting
17. khVti. ptIwErIk Vmki nurIstàn stV nuksEV. imustV gul Vmkyo3
doing in-the-end they Nuristan from pushed-out our area them
18. tàstà34 wVKtà.
from-then we-took
Free Translation
This is my short story. In 1978 the communists overthrew Daud. At the

time when they had taken control of the kingdom I was working for the Interior
Ministry in Kabul, Afghanistan as a clerk. I did not have the heart to join with
the communists when they had taken control. I left my work. I went to
Nuristan, the land of my fathers and grandfathers. The Communist government
was there also. For this reason I left the area and went to Pakistan. In the end of
September of that year I was back in our area again when the Holy war came to
our area. In our area I saw that the communist government had done many bad
things. Many houses and farms were knocked down by bombing. Many people
were also killed. There had been alot of serious fighting. I also joined with the
freedom fighters. We were like brothers. I was fighting with them there in that
place, I saw many of my brothers martyred in front of me. We were fighting
them continuously for six months. In the end they were pushed out of Nuristan.
We took our area from them.
241
Appendix C.8 Shekhani text
SHEKHANI, LANGORBAT
Recovery from Gunshot Wound
1. itV dus7mVni os7i àkise gàdià3 pàs7iKger gom. pàs7iKger sV

my enemy came from-there went Pashangar went Pashangar from
2. dus7mVn àti kise àti. tVpke wenom tVpke widi osVm de-yVm
enemy came there came gun shot gun fired ? hit-me
3. sVndem. tosV hà kIseo3 moTVr DVTsVn tV pàNledi. àrnu
? ? ? from-there car Datsun in climbed Arandu
4. Vromnu su cVtràl bVm. cVtràl hàspItàl tà tre wàz bestVr
carried from Chitral arrived Chitral hospital in three days on-bed
5. Vzim. bestVr tVsV bàd Vki es ilàj né bo. né bito
laying bed ? after there ? health not became not became
6. àkIsie hVKgià DàkTVr à pexVwVr né meyVm. pexVwVr VspVtàl tV
there treatment(?) doctor I Peshawar ? sent Peshawar hospital to
7. V3ki bestVr bom bestVr te Vpres7Vn kàm. Vpres7Vn toso bàd
me bed arrived bed from operation did operation from after
8. ondi pàmonV miom. VKgio pVmo àti. e moz bo
? to-home sent from-there home came one month became
9. moz bide àkise cime di cVtràl gom cVtràl sV jàz sà
month past there-from then ? Chitral went Chitral from airplane on
10. TikVT né nVzem-zà. tikVT né bàki TikVT né bito wàpVs bi.
ticket not obtain ticket not became ticket not became back went
11. moTVr tV jeli dir gom àkise cime pexàwVr gom. dir se
car to rode Dir went there-from then Peshawar went Dir from
12. gIdi pexwVr pVàm. pexàwVr pVàm àkise gedi VspVtàl tV
went Peshawar reached Peshawar reached from-there went hospital to
13. gom. VspVtàl tV gedi e moz bestVr bom. bestVr tV se bàd
went hospital at went one month bed became bed in from after
14. Vki se di àpres7Vn kàiki. Vpres7Vn ti V3 lesV bom lesV
me from ? operation did operation from my good became good
15. bibi Ekhi e moz boŒ†. e moz tVsV bàdo3 wIdip

had-become one-of one month became one month ? after ?
16. pàmonV meyomo pàmoà tidi. drVwis VspVtàl dV3 hiyumE3 ji pVTài
to-home sent home ? Drosh hospital ? ? ? bandage
17. konàzim pVTài konàzim. ins7àlëà lesV drVwis V3 derVzVm.
was-doing bandage was-doing Allah-willing good Drosh I here-stay
18. màkIRE dErà-beReà hàr prVcVl bVr gedi VspItàl, drVwis VspVtVl
? ? every morning down going hospital, Drosh hospital
19. tV gedi pVTài konVm sUrU. DVktVre ine hIdàyVt pros7à Vci àlVKo
to going dressing doing ? doctor this advice ? ? heavy
20. kodim nà-s7i sUrà. àlVKgo kodem toye3 nuksàn àzŒ†. E se tV
work not-do ? heavy work for-me danger is one year to
21. wikV to sUrU kàru làtri nàyo rVsUmo. né sUrU hVr gVjVr gIdi se
up-to ? ? hard thing not eat ? ? every day went from
22. bVré gedi pVTVi konum. nVmàs ins7àlëà stuge pVs7ik
down go bandage do now Allah-willing ? ?
23. olesVm.
well-become
Free Translation
My enemy came when I went to Pashangar. My enemy is from

Pashangar, and I came there. He had a gun and fired and I was hit by him. I was
taken from there in a Datsun. I was taken from Arandu to Chitral. I was in
Chitral hospital laying in bed for three days. After being(?) in bed I did not get
healthy. Treatment was not available so the doctor sent me to Peshawar. I got a
bed in Peshawar hospital and had an operation. After the operation they sent me
to home. From there I came home. After one month I went to Chitral. But I
could not get an airplane ticket from Chitral. When I could not get a ticket I
went back. I rode in a car to Dir then from there to Peshawar. From Dir I went
to Peshawar. When I arrived in Peshawar I went to the hospital. At the hospital
I was in bed for one month. After being in bed I had an operation. As a result of
the operation, I became well after one month. After one month I was sent home.
I went to Drosh Hospital to have my bandages changed. As Allah wills, it is
good that I am staying here in Drosh. For this(?) every morning I am going to
the hospital, (I am going to) Drosh Hospital to have the bandages changed. The
doctor advised me to not do any heavy labor. Heavy work is dangerous for me.
Appendix C.8 Shekhani Text 243
For one year I am not to eat hard things. Every day I am going to have my
bandages changed. Now, Allah willing, I will be healthy.
244
Appendix C.9 Gawar-Bati text
GAWAR-BATI, ARANDU
Difficulties in Arandu
1. monV nàm osmàn thVnV. à àràndu ànV tàsil àné thenem dros7
my name Usman is I Arandu from tehsil from am Drosh
2. ànà cVtràl àné zilà àné thinem. digVr bo à bikili
from Chitral from District from am afternoon became I field
3. ànke dibom. àw yVk-dVm orusVnà jàz àyé àw bVs bVmbàri
to went and suddenly Russian jet came and ? bombardment
4. kerus. bàmbàre né pVtài gIri ràzà, neyR yVk Dàt_sUn du
did bombardment from after then ? near one Datsun two
5. Dàt_sUn, àw gul sVmbVrV né bàbes mir bo s7àhid bo.
Datsun, and Gul Sambar POSS father dead became martyr became
6. gIri du bàgé pVtVi lVwVs Vnki di-bàmbom. pVn-tV gVlVTàkà monEs7
then two days after Drosh to go-? road-on kalkatak ?
7. bàgài. bVgV né pVtVi rot_sà s7o bVjV monà lVkV tImbàgàrV
night night from after morning six o’clock my such-as ?
8. swIre ke gIri jVz unàE Et bàmbàri kerus. bàmbàri
Suwir to again jet brought here bombardment did bombardment
9. àné pVtVi gIri bàs7 zVn s7o s7egàli boi àw s7o zVn bo
from after again twelve men six women were and six men were
10. bàs7 zàn miri àw is7ot_sur zàn zàxme bo. pVtVi gIri sànV
twelve men died and twenty-four men injured were after next that
11. IfàzVt Vnki ziyà seb bi àyo. ào pVtVi gIri podVme jonejo
defend to Zia sahib also came and next then first Junejo
12. seb bi ji bo. pVti gIrVn bàmbàri ànV mene pVtài
sahib also came was then ? bombardment brought ? after
13. gIri àcI lVwo3s àlàvi gQm bo. Vmé nV làmo bIrikoTà neRVi
again ? Drosh ? wound were we from village Barikot near
14. s7emànà làm thVnV. VrVndu nV neRVi bIrikoTà thVnV. àw
Shemana village is Arandu from near Barikot is and
Appendix C.9 Gawar-bati Text 245
15. bVrikoTà gIri tIni lVo fàwjyàn bo. àw fàwjyàn yVk kàl bo
Barikot then there many soldiers were and soldiers one year were
16. s7i lVkV di wo gà sumI geVt. nui Vmé nV neRVi s7ià
what such-as go this went all they-went now we from near ?
17. bàrikoT woworeyV sF xlàs bo. nui Vmé bi dimekh àw time bi
Barikot ? that free did now we also going and ? also
18. jimet. nui à VrVndu thinem VrVndu VnV làwV3s Vnki ji.
come now I Arandu am Arandu from Drosh to came
19. phVtiGVn tànu MVm kemem. MVm àmV nV pVtài moné mo
continue(?) own work doing work home from after my me
20. bVlEmIm tànu blVg à boxàri sàz thenem. boxàri sàz nV
looking-after own nephew I stove maker am stove maker from
21. pàdes7 momàn moné àmo podàme ki MVm àyo. tànu MVm
learned(?) uncle mine home front-of LOC work he-came own work
22. kemem. wVre bi VmV nV làm ki wo bo lVo mànus7-àm
doing other also home of village LOC this are many men-OBL
23. s7àhid bo. mVgVr-àm bàd tI wi-bwis7I Vmàn ke lVwV3s Vnki
martyrs became but-OBL after ? ? our to Drosh to
24. TVn MImàm bo. Vmàn ke lVwV3s Vnki tQm nE MVm bom. joj
place give become our to Drosh to ? no work became ?
25. jVun ci tànu làmé nés7i merimàn bio ke dVrimVn bio. wàre lVkV
said ? own village set die be to live(?) be other such-as
26. misàl tVno Vmà né tVno làmV né tVno wVtVnV né hefàzVt à Vnki
example own home in own village in own country in defence I to
27. tine nis7i tinek. bVs tàno wVtVnV né defà kemek.
there set watching(?) that’s-all own country of defend doing
28. fVn-tV bi lVo mànus7 lVo bVKgVrV-met, lVkV fVn-tV bi
road-on also many people much afraid, because road-on also
29. nàs7àn thenà, kol àu jimàn, kol mVxrunàn jimàn, kol kIjà
bad is, when water comes, when fugitives come, when ?
30. jimàn, àw kol o mVgVr mànus7-àm lVo bVKgVri sVn
come, and when (pause) meaning people very frightened ?
31. dimàn ào jimàn. fVn-tV màlum ni bimVn màlum ni timVn
going and coming road-on know not become know not is
32. pVrVzosà. pVtVi lVkV Insàn lVo mosibVt là, tVklif nVm
understrand after such-as life(?) much ? ? trouble ?
33. lVri-met lVwV3s Vnke ji, àw phVtiGVn ji, àw lVkV Insàn mVnus7
men(?) Drosh to go, and continue(?) go, and such life(?) people
34. MVm bo-bo jimàn bi nVi. lVkV phVn-tV lVo sVxtenàm
work has-become(?) coming is not such-as road-on very difficult
35. tInEm pVrzosà. phVtiGVn bàti wi-bwis7i lVkV, àmV lVmO lVo
is understand continue(?) talk ? such-as, our village very
36. sVxtenàm tInEm. sVxtenVm mVnje Vmé nis7i tinek àw bVs. àlëàh
hardness is difficulty with we sit are(?) and that’s-all Allah
37. pàk rizVk Memàn, tene pis7imek àw z7imek. pVrzosà.
Holy food give, there drinking and eating understand
Free Translation
My name is Usman. I am from Arandu Tehsil, Drosh and Chitral District.

One afternoon I went to the field. And suddenly a Russian jet came and
bombed. From the bombing near a Datsun (pick-up truck), two Datsuns were
damaged(?), and Gul Sambara’s father died and became a martyr. Then after
two nights I went to Drosh. On the way I stayed(?) in Kalkatak for night. After
the night at six o’clock in the morning, I somehow(?) went to Suwir, again a jet
came and bombed. After the bombing happened again, twelve men and six
women and six men were...twelve men died and twenty-four men were injured.
After that Mr. Zia came to defend us. And Mr. Junejo also came first. After the
bombardment the wounded were taken(?) to Drosh. We are from a village near
Barikot, it is Shemana village. Barikot is near Arandu. And then in Barikot
there were many soldiers. The soldiers were there for one year, but(?) what,
they all went away. Now ? Barikot is free. Now we going and coming. Now I
am in Arandu, from Arandu I came to Drosh. I continue to do my own work.
After working at home I apprenticed, I am a stove maker. I learned(?) stove
making from my uncle, he came to work in front of my home. I do my own
work. There were others in my home village, these many men became martyrs.
But after this (?) we wanted a place (to stay) in Drosh. Our people went(?) to
Drosh but there was no work. They said we sould stay in our own village
whether we die or live. Other such examples are: To defend of our homes, our
village, and our country I set watching. That’s all, we defend our country. On
the road also, many people are afraid, because the road is bad, when the water
(floods) comes, when fugitives come, when ? come, and when ... I mean people
Appendix C.9 Gawar-bati Text 247
are very frightened, ? going and coming. They do not know if the road is clear
or not. Furthermore, life is very hard(?), there is much trouble as men continue
to go and come to Drosh, and such is life and how peoples work has become.
That’s the way it is, the road is very difficult. Do you understand? Continuing
what I was saying, it is very difficult in our village. With difficulty we sit
(exist), and that’s all. Holy Allah gives food, there we are drinking and eating.
Do you understand?
248
APPENDIX D
CHITRAL SURVEY SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
(ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS)
1. Name: Sex: M F
2. MT: Spouse’s MT:
3. Age: a) 10-20 b) 20-30 c) 30-40 d) 40+
5. Your birthplace:
6. Father’s MT: Mother’s MT:
7. Do you have any relatives who have another first language?

Who? What language?
8. Current residence:
9. Education:
10. What name(s) do you give your language?
11. How many people here speak your language?

(village, tehsil, or district)
a) a few c) almost everyone
b) most d) everyone
12. Where are the nearest schools?

primary secondary college
12a. How many are being educated?
Boys Girls
13. What language do the social/political leaders of your group speak in the
following situations:
13a. public speeches
13b. among themselves
13c. informally w/members of your community
13d. w/members of other communities
14. What other lang. groups do you come in contact with most frequently?
14a. What is the frequency of the contact?
15. What was the first language(s) that you learned to speak? If you learned
more than one language simultaneously, which of them do you consider to
be your MT?
15a. Where/How did you learn the languages you know?
Appendix D Chitral Survey Sample Questionnaire 249
16. What other languages do you know?
17. What language feels easiest for you? (Or, what is your best language?)
18. What are the languages known to your parents?
19. What are the languages which your children:

understand: speak:
20. What language(s) do you speak:

at home with friends with neighbors
20a. now:
20b. in childhood:
21. Is the use of languages other than mother tongue

increasing at home? Which language?
If yes, what is responsible for it?
e.g. a) necessary for better jobs
b) necessary for (higher) education
c) desire social status & prestige
d) desire business/economic gains
e) social pressure
f) political pressure
22. How much do you speak _____ in your home?

1. never 4. half the time (50%)
2. rarely 5. most of the time (70-80%)
3. sometimes (20-30%) 6. always
23. How much do women speak _____ in your home?

1. never 4. half the time (50%)
2. rarely 5. most of the time (70-80%)
3. sometimes (20-30%) 6. always
24. What language do you usually use to speak to:

a) your spouse
b) your children
c) your parents
d) schoolteachers
e) elders in your village
f) market traders
g) government officials
h) your friends/peers
i) those over you at work
j) your fellow workers
k) those under you at work
l) religious leaders
25. What language do you most often speak when you are speaking to
_____-speaking people?
26. What language is used in mosque for preaching?
27. What languages are used for instruction and at what levels?
28. Do the teachers in your schools belong to:
a) your language group?
b) other language groups? Which ones?
29. How useful do you think your language is for the following purposes?
1) very 2) some 3) not at all
29a. getting jobs
29b. higher education
29c. communication w/other communities
29d. spreading your cultural & social values
29e. creating a sense of unity among your community
29f. integration w/other communities
29g. other (specify)
30. Would you want your son to marry a _____-speaking girl?
Why or why not?
Would you want your daughter to marry a _____-speaking boy?
Why or why not?
31. Which villages speak the same language as you, but it is slightly different?
32. What language is best to know if you want to find employment?
33. Where do they speak the purest/most impure MT?
Purest Why? Impure Why?
34. When the children grow up, what language do you think they will speak
the most?
35. Are there people here who don’t use your language any more? How many?
a) a few b) most c) almost everyone
36. Do people from here go to other places? Where? For how long?
36a. What lang. do you use there?
37. How frequently do you listen to radio, television, or tape recorder and in
which languages?
38. How often do you meet people from another village where your language
is spoken? What language do you speak with them? Can you understand
them?
39. Are there children with a different mother tongue attending the same
school as your children? What language do they speak?
Appendix D Chitral Survey Sample Questionnaire 251
40. Do many of your people marry speakers of other languages? Which

languages?
40a. What language do they speak with their children?
252
REFERENCES
Ahmad Saeed. n.d. Descendants of Choke and Machoke in Ashret: a study in
anthropology. Unpublished Ms.
Akiner, Shirin. 1983. Islamic peoples of the Soviet Union. London: Kegan Paul,
Inc.
Anjuman-E-Taraqqi Khowar Chitral. 1990. 2nd International Hindukush
Cultural Conference 19-23rd September, 1990.
Backstrom, Peter C. 1992. Wakhi. In Backstrom and Radloff 1992.
———, and Carla F. Radloff. 1992. Sociolinguistic survey of northern
Pakistan, volume 2: Languages of Northern Areas. Islamabad: National
Institute of Pakistan Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Barth, Fredrik. 1985. The last Wali of Swat. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Biddulph, John. 1880. Tribes of the Hindoo Koosh. (Reprinted in 1986, Lahore,
Pakistan: Ali Kamran Publishers.)
Buddruss, Georg. 1967. Die sprache von Sau in Ostafghanistan, beiträge zur
kenntnis des Dardischen Phalura. Münchener Studien zur
Sprachwissenscaft, Beiheft M. München: J. Kitzinger.
———. 1988. Letter to Inayatullah Faizi (August 2). Annual Journal of
Kohwar (Chitral, Pakistan: Anjuman-e-Taraqi-e-Kohwar), 14-15.
Cacopardo, Alberto. 1990. The other Kalasha: A survey of Kalashamun-
speaking people in southern Chitral (Part 1: The eastern area). Paper
presented at the 2nd International Hindu Kush Cultural Conference,
Chitral, Sept. 19-23, 1990.
Chitral District Council. 1983. Survey conducted with the help of The
Community Five Year Development Program. Extracts from the Urdu
translated by Hidayat-ul-Islam.
———. 1987. Rearrangement of population by wards for local body elections.
Unpublished figures.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1989. History of Northern Areas of Pakistan. Islamabad:
National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research.
Davidson, J. 1902. Notes on the Bashgali (Kafir) language. Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. 71:1.1-195, extra number 1.
Decker, Kendall. 1990. Some observations on language vitality in Chitral.
Paper presented at the Second International Hindu Kush Cultural
Conference, Chitral, September 19-23, 1990.
References 253
Decker, Sandra J. 1992. Ushojo. Sociolinguistic survey of northern Pakistan,

volume 1: Languages of Kohistan, by Calvin R. Rensch, Sandra J.
Decker, and Daniel G. Hallberg. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan
Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics.
District Census Report of Gilgit. 1981. Population Census Organization,
Statistic Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
Edelberg, Lennert and Schuyler Jones. 1979. Nuristan. Graz, Austria:
Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt.
Edelman, Dzhoi Iosifivna. 1983. The Dardic and Nuristani languages.
Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental
Literature.
Emeneau, M. B. 1966. The dialects of Old Indo-Aryan. Ancient Indo-European
dialects, ed. by Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel, 123-38. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Endresen, Rolf Theil and Knut Kristiansen. 1981. Khowar studies (Hommages
et opera minora, volume VII, monumentum Georg Morgenstierne I).
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Fussman, Gerard. 1972. Atlas Linguistique des parlers Dardes et Kafirs, vol. 2.
Paris: Ecole Francaise D’Extreme-Orient.
———. 1989. Languages as a source for history. In Dani 1989:43-58.
Grierson, George. 1901-1927. Linguistic survey of India. Vol. I-X. Calcutta:
Government of India, Central Publishing Branch.
Grjunberg, A. L. 1968. Languages of the eastern Hindu Kush. Moscow: Nauka
Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental Literature.
Grjunberg, A. L. 1971. K dialektologii Dardskix jazykov (Glangali i Zemiaki).
Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental
Literature.
Grjunberg, A. L. 1988. La langue Wakhi. Paris: Maison des sciences de
l’homme.
Hallberg, Calinda E. and Clare F. O’Leary. 1992. Dialect variation and
multilingualism among Gujars of Pakistan. Sociolinguistic survey of
northern Pakistan, volume 3: Hindko and Gujari, by Calvin R. Rensch,
Calinda E. Hallberg and Clare F. O’Leary. Islamabad: National Institute
of Pakistan Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hallberg, Daniel G. 1992. Sociolinguistic survey of northern Pakistan, volume
4: Pashto, Waneci, Ormuri. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan
Inayatullah Faizi. 1988. People of the Wakhan. Peshawar: The Frontier Post,
May 6, 1988.
———. 1989. Different dialects of Kohwar. Annual Journal of Kohwar. 19-28.
Chitral, Pakistan: Anjuman-e-Taraqi-e-Kohwar.
———. 1989b. The withdrawn Kirghiz community. Peshawar: The Frontier

Post, March 10, 1989, p. 10.
———. 1990. Personal communication.
Israr-ud-Din. 1969. The people of Chitral: A survey of their ethnic diversity.
Pakistan Geographical Review 24.1:45-57.
———. 1979. Chitral – a historical sketch. Journal of Area Study: Central Asia
3:4.1-13. Peshawar: University of Peshawar.
———. 1990. Chitral: the heart of the Hindu Kush. Souvenir booklet presented
at The Second International Hindu Kush Cultural Conference, Chitral,
Sept. 19-23, 1990.
———. 1990b. Welcome address presented at the Second International Hindu
Kush Cultural Conference, Chitral, Sept. 19-23, 1990.
Jettmar, Karl. 1980, reprint. Bolor and Dardistan. Islamabad: National Institute
of Folk Heritage.
———. 1989. Northern areas of Pakistan – an ethnographic sketch. In Dani
1989:59-88.
Jones, Schuyler. 1966. An annotated bibliography of Nuristan (Kafiristan) and
the Kalash Kafirs of Chitral. Copenhague: Munksgaard.
Jones, Schuyler. 1974. Men of influence in Nuristan. London: Seminar Press.
Keay, John. 1979. The Gilgit game. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Kristiansen, Knut. 1978. Minnetale over Professor Dr. Philos. Georg
Morgenstierne. [Reprint by Oslo: Arbok, Norske Videnskaps-Akademis
1978.1-12.], portr. with suppl. to the bibliography published in
Morgenstierne’s Indo-Iranian frontier languages, 2nd ed., IV, 1973.
Lines, Maureen. 1990. A sad legacy. Paper presented at the 2nd International
Hindu Kush Cultural Conference, Chitral, Sept. 19 to 23, 1990.
Lorimer, D. L. R. 1922. The phonology of the Bakhtiari, Badakhshani, and
Madaglashti dialects of modern Persian. London: Royal Asiatic Society.
———. 1958. The Wakhi language. London: University of London, School of
Oriental and African Studies.
Lorimer, E. O. 1939. Language hunting in the Karakoram. London: George
Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Mackenzie, D. N. 1969. Iranian languages. Current trends in linguistics, vol. 5,
linguistics in South Asia, ed. by T.A. Sebeok, 450-477. Paris: La Haye.
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Meillet, Antoine and Marcel Cohen (eds.) 1952. Les langues du monde. Paris:
Campion.
References 255
Morgenstierne, Georg. 1930. The name “Munjan” and some other names of
places and peoples in the Hindu Kush. Bulletin of the School of Oriental
Studies 6.439-444 London: University of London.
———. 1932. Report on a linguistic mission to North-Western India. (Series C
III-1). Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning.
———. 1938. Indo-Iranian frontier languages, volume II, Iranian Pamir
languages. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning.
———. 1941. Notes on PhalüRa: an unknown Dardic language of Chitral.
(Skrifter utgitt av det norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo II. hist.-filos.
klasse. 1940:5) Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.
———. 1942. Notes on Dameli: a Kafir-Dardic language of Chitral. Norsk
Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 12.115-198.
———. 1945. Notes on Shumashti, a Dardic dialect of Gawar-Bati type. Norsk
Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 13.239-281.
———. 1947. Some features of Khowar morphology. Norsk Tidsskrift for
Sprogvidenskap, 14.5-28.
———. 1950. Notes on Gawar-Bati. (Skrifter utgitt av det norske videnskaps
akademi i Oslo, II, hist.-fil. klasse, no.1.)
———. 1961. Dardic and Kafir languages. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New
Edition, vol. 2, ed. by B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht, 138-139.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
———. 1973. Indo-Iranian frontier languages, vol. 4: Kalasha. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
———. 1974. Languages of Nuristan and surrounding regions. Cultures of the
Hindukush, ed. by Karl Jettmar and Lennert Edelberg, Bd. 1.1-10.
Wiesbaden: Beitr. zur Südasienforschung, Südasien-Inst., Univ.
Heidelberg.
——— and Wazir Ali Shah. 1959. Some Khowar songs. Acta Oriental 24:29-
58.
Munnings, David. 1987. Kohwar lexicography; working copy no. 6.
Unpublished Ms.
———. 1989 and 1990. Personal communication.
———. 1990. Towards a sociolinguistic profile of the Khowar language.
Unpublished Ms.
Nyrop, Richard F. 1986. Area handbook for Pakistan. Washington, D.C.:
Foreign Area Studies, The American University.
O’Brien, D. J. T. 1895. Grammar and vocabulary of the Khowar dialect
(Chitrali). Lahore: Civil and Military Gazette Press.
Payne, J. R. 1987. Iranian languages. The world’s major languages, ed. by
Bernard Comrie, 514-522. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radloff, Carla F. 1992. The dialects of Shina. Sociolinguistic survey of northern

Pakistan, volume 2: Languages of the Northern Areas, by Peter C.
Backstrom and Carla F. Radloff. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan
Robertson, George Scott. 1896. The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush. London:
Lawrence and Bullen, Ltd. [Reprinted in 1970, New York: Johnson
Reprint Corporation.]
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A guide to the world’s languages, volume 1:
Classification. Standford, California: Standford University Press.
Schmidt, Ruth Laila and Omkar N. Koul. 1983. Kohistani to Kashmiri: An
annotated bibliography of Dardic languages. Patiala, India: Indian
Institute of Language Studies.
Schomberg, R. C. F. 1935. Between the Oxus and the Indus. London: Martin
Hopkinson Ltd. [Reprinted Lahore, Pakistan: Sind Sagar Academy,
Chowk Minar Anarkali.]
———. 1938. Kafirs and glaciers – travels in Chitral. London: Martin
Hopkinson Ltd.
Shahrani, M. Nazif. 1979. The Kirghiz and Wakhi of Afghanistan. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Sharma, Jagdish Chander. 1982. Gojri grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of
Indian Languages.
Shaw, R. B. 1876. On the Ghalchah languages. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal, 45:1:2.139-278.
Siiger, Halfdan. 1956. Ethnological field-research in Chitral, Sikkim, and
Assam. Kobenhavn: Munksgaard.
Sloan, Mohammad Ismail. 1981. Khowar English dictionary. New York:
Mohammad Ismail Sloan.
Snoy, Peter. 1965. Nuristan und Mundgan. (Special publication no. 8.)
Heidelberg: Südasien-Institut der Universität Heidelberg.
Stahl, James Louis. 1988. Multilingualism in Kalam Kohistan. Arlington,
Texas: The University of Texas at Arlington. Unpublished Master’s
thesis.
Strand, Richard F. 1973. Notes on the Nuristani and Dardic languages. Journal
of the American Oriental Society 93.297-305.
Sultan-ul-Arifin, Mohammad. 1988. The Yidgha language of Lotkoh tehsil.
Peshawar, Pakistan: University of Peshawar, Pakistan Study Center.
Unpublished Master’s thesis.
Trail, Gail. 1990. Tsyam revisited — A study of Kalash origins. Paper
presented at the Second International Hindu Kush Cultural Conference,
Chitral, Sept. 19 to 23, 1990.
References 257
Turner, R. L. 1966-71. A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages,

vols. 1-2. London: Oxford University Press; vol. 3 (Addenda and
Corrigenda) London: SOAS.
Voegelin, C. F. and F. M. Voegelin. 1965. The Dardic branch or sub-branch of
Indo-European. Languages of the World: Indo-European Fascicle One.
Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 8.284-94.

SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF NORTHERN PAKISTAN Volume 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF NORTHERN PAKISTAN Volume 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEY OF

Volume 1 Languages of Kohistan

Clare F. O’Leary, Ph.D.

National Institute of Summer Institute

Published by National Institute of Pakistan Studies,

First published 1992

Price, this volume: Rs.300/-

To obtain copies of these volumes within Pakistan, contact:

To obtain copies of these volumes outside of Pakistan, contact:

REFORMATTING FOR REPRINT BY R. CANDLIN.

The northern area of Pakistan occupies a unique position on

Northern Pakistan is a land of geographic and ethnic

Twenty-five named languages from within northern

The largest number of Indo-Aryan languages dealt with in

Dardic and Nuristani branches is based on several scholarly

give some perspective on the relative levels of diversity within

In addition to questions of diversity within languages, there

the younger generations within those groups (e.g., Domaaki,

In terms of methodology, this research makes a contribution

Each report reflects a slightly different focus. Some

Domaaki. One language included in this research has not been

Acknowledgments for the Series

The Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan was carried

support of Dr. Sahibzada M. Riaz, current chairman of the

Acknowledgments for this volume

This study could not have been completed without the

INTRODUCTION TO THE LANGUAGES OF

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

This study of the languages of Chitral was concerned with

2. A SHORT HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC STUDIES

The history of the study of the languages of northern

(Eastern Kativiri), and Yidghah (Yidgha). The next major

3. METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE STUDY OF THE

3.1 Literature review and map information

Due to the remote location, rugged environment, and

The geographic names and spellings used in the maps and

3.2 Choice of data collection sites, respondents, and co-

often their work can be found in Pakistani university libraries or bookstores in

which permission could be obtained. For the language groups

Observation is useful for identifying areas which need

3.4 Word list collection

3.5 Word list comparison

Word list comparison has been used to provide an empirical

A question remains as to how much difference is required

3.6 Text collection

Texts were recorded in many locations and transcriptions

3.7 Interviews and questionnaires

In this study several different types of interactions with

specific item of information. There were several interviews

Information gathered through interviews which did not

The first questionnaire designed for this study in 1989 had

The primary interest was the investigation of the types of

the same people one meets at the work place. As commonly

The second language proficiency of participants in this

Due to their involvement in other language research

To explore the area of attitudes, the focus of attention is on

Information on marriage patterns may give some indication

3.8 Population figures

There are no accurate census figures which count people by

the opinions of the participants. These figures usually correlated

Rounded Total: 209,500 to 243,800

3.9 Interpretation of data

On-site data collection for each of the languages was often